We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
What primary sources are there for Charles the First's 1640 seizure of gold from the Tower mint?
It is described here in the tertiary source, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England#Finances
You might consult
- Challis, C. E., ed. 1992. A New History of the Royal Mint.; or,
- Craig, J. 1953. The Mint: A History of the London Mint from A.D. 287 to 1948.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics (available from the unciteable Google Books) cites the following primary sources:
- Burnet's History of my own time and
- Rushworth's Historical Collections
- and Annals of the Coinage by Ruding, Rogers
- Make an overhead transparency (or equivalent) of the following:
- "Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Quarter" page
- "Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Quarter" page (one per student)
- Create document analysis worksheets for multiple types of documents (letter, report, diary, etc.)
- "Harpers Ferry History Essay Question and Rubric" (one per student)
- Prepare visual examples of primary and secondary sources that reveal details of the significance of John Brown, the fort depicted in the coin and Harpers Ferry prior to the Civil War.
- Locate this site on a class map. Note its position in relation to your school's location.
- As background information, explain to the students that the United States Mint began to issue the quarters in the America the Beautiful Quarters® Program in 2010. By the time the program ends in 2021, there will be a total of 56 designs. Each design will focus on a different national site—one from each state, territory and the District of Columbia.
- Display and examine the "Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Quarter" page
- Tell the students that the front of a coin is called the "obverse" and the back is called the "reverse." Ask the students to read the inscriptions on the image of the coin's reverse.
- Ask the students what information may be inferred from the inscriptions. As students make their inferences, list them on the board or chart paper. Student responses should include that John Brown's fort is located in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia that this must be an important location in United States history since it is inscribed on United States currency and that "E Pluribus Unum" means "Out of Many, One."
- Explain that the image on the reverse design features John Brown's Fort, the site of John Brown's last stand during his raid on the Armory in 1859.
- Using sources listed in "preparation," display primary and secondary sources and discuss with students the significance of the imagery on the coin. Include images, texts and other documents for reference.
- Lead a class discussion about the reliability of each source. Include the creation date of the document as part of the conversation. Ask them how they could locate this information.
- Tell the students that analyzing the primary sources is only the first step in corroborating sources of information.
- As a class, confirm the accuracy of at least one secondary source against the primary sources.
- Facilitate a class discussion about why it is important to corroborate sources of information in history. Ask the students if they think this is a skill that can be applied to other academic fields or in daily life. Have the students provide specific examples and details with their answers.
- Tell the students that tomorrow they will write an essay explaining the importance of the corroboration of sources of information in daily life.
- Distribute the "Harpers History Essay Question and Rubric." Review the essay question and rubric with students.
- Allow time for the students to write the first draft of their essays. Provide individual assistance as needed.
- Allow time for peer editing and feedback.
- Have the students write the final version of their essay.
- Have the students fill in the self-assessment on their rubric. Collect the rubrics and essays.
Types of Seizures
Epilepsy is a disorder of the brain. People are diagnosed with epilepsy when they have had two or more seizures.
There are many types of seizures. A person with epilepsy can have more than one type of seizure.
The signs of a seizure depend on the type of seizure.
Sometimes it is hard to tell when a person is having a seizure. A person having a seizure may seem confused or look like they are staring at something that isn&rsquot there. Other seizures can cause a person to fall, shake, and become unaware of what&rsquos going on around them.
Learn about different types of seizures and their signs and symptoms so you can tell when someone is having a seizure.
Visit our first aid page to learn what you can do to keep that person safe until the seizure stops by itself.
Seizures are classified into two groups.
- Absence seizures, sometimes called petit mal seizures, can cause rapid blinking or a few seconds of staring into space.
- Tonic-clonic seizures, also called grand mal seizures, can make a person
- Cry out.
- Lose consciousness.
- Fall to the ground.
- Have muscle jerks or spasms.
The person may feel tired after a tonic-clonic seizure.
- Focal seizures are located in just one area of the brain. These seizures are also called partial seizures.
- Simple focal seizures affect a small part of the brain. These seizures can cause twitching or a change in sensation, such as a strange taste or smell.
- Complex focal seizures can make a person with epilepsy confused or dazed. The person will be unable to respond to questions or direction for up to a few minutes.
- Secondary generalized seizures begin in one part of the brain, but then spread to both sides of the brain. In other words, the person first has a focal seizure, followed by a generalized seizure.
Seizures may last as long as a few minutes.
These words are used to describe generalized seizures:
- Tonic: Muscles in the body become stiff.
- Atonic: Muscles in the body relax.
- Myoclonic: Short jerking in parts of the body.
- Clonic: Periods of shaking or jerking parts on the body.
Not all seizures are emergencies.
Keep track of how long the seizure lasts. Call 911 if a seizure lasts more than 5 minutes or if the person gets injured during the seizure.
Learn seizure first aid to respond when a person is having a seizure.
A generalized seizure occurs in both sides of the brain. Your child will lose consciousness and be tired after the seizure (postictal state). Types of generalized seizures include:
Absence seizure . This is also called petit mal seizure. This seizure causes a brief changed state of consciousness and staring. Your child will likely maintain posture. His or her mouth or face may twitch or eyes may blink rapidly. The seizure usually lasts no longer than 30 seconds. When the seizure is over, your child may not recall what just occurred. He or she may go on with activities as though nothing happened. These seizures may occur several times a day. This type of seizure is sometimes mistaken for a learning or behavioral problem. Absence seizures almost always start between ages 4 to 12.
Atonic seizure. This is also called a drop attack. With an atonic seizure, your child has a sudden loss of muscle tone and may fall from a standing position or suddenly drop his or her head. During the seizure, your child will be limp and unresponsive.
Generalized tonic-clonic seizure (GTC). This is also called grand mal seizure. The classic form of this kind of seizure has 5 distinct phases. Your child&rsquos body, arms, and legs will flex (contract), extend (straighten out), and tremor (shake). This is followed by contraction and relaxation of the muscles (clonic period) and the postictal period. During the postictal period, your child may be sleepy. He or she may have problems with vision or speech, and may have a bad headache, fatigue, or body aches. Not all of these phases occur in everyone with this type of seizure.
Myoclonic seizure. This type of seizure causes quick movements or sudden jerking of a group of muscles. These seizures tend to occur in clusters. This means that they may occur several times a day, or for several days in a row.
The popular belief that high-fat diets cause obesity and several other diseases such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, and cancer has not been observed in recent epidemiological studies. Studies carried out in animals that were fed high-fat diets did not show a specific causal relationship between dietary fat and obesity. On the contrary, very-low-carbohydrate and high-fat diets such as the ketogenic diet have shown to beneficial to weight loss.
Evidence Behind The Ketogenic Diet
In relation to overall caloric intake, carbohydrates comprise around 55% of the typical American diet, ranging from 200 to 350 g/day. The vast potential of refined carbohydrates to cause harmful effects were relatively neglected until recently. A greater intake of sugar-laden food is associated with a 44% increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome and obesity and a 26% increase in the risk of developing diabetes mellitus. In a 2012 study of all cardiometabolic deaths (heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes) in the United States, an estimated 45.4% were associated with suboptimal intakes of 10 dietary factors. The largest estimated mortality was associated with high sodium intake (9.5%), followed by low intake of nuts and seeds (8.5%), high intake of processed meats (8.2%), low intake of omega-3 fats (7.8%), low intake of vegetables 7.6%), low intake of fruits (7.5%), and high intake of artificially sweetened beverages (7.4%). The lowest estimated mortality was associated with low polyunsaturated fats (2.3%) and unprocessed red meats (0.4%). In addition to this direct harm, excess consumption of low-quality carbohydrates may displace and leave no room in the diet for healthier foods like nuts, unprocessed grains, fruits, and vegetables.
A recent systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the long-term effects (greater than 1 year) of dietary interventions on weight loss showed no sound evidence for recommending low-fat diets. In fact, low-carbohydrate diets led to significantly greater weight loss compared to low-fat interventions. It was observed that a carbohydrate-restricted diet is better than a low-fat diet for retaining an individual’s BMR. In other words, the quality of calories consumed may affect the number of calories burned. BMR dropped by more than 400 kcal/day on a low-fat diet when compared to a very low-carb diet.
A well-formulated ketogenic diet, besides limiting carbohydrates, also limits protein intake moderately to less than 1g/lb body weight, unless individuals are performing heavy exercise involving weight training when the protein intake can be increased to 1.5g/lb body weight. This is to prevent the endogenous production of glucose in the body via gluconeogenesis. However, it does not restrict fat or overall daily calories. People on a ketogenic diet initially experience rapid weight loss up to 10 lbs in 2 weeks or less. This diet has a diuretic effect, and some early weight loss is due to water weight loss followed by a fat loss. Interestingly with this diet plan, lean body muscle is largely spared. As a nutritional ketosis state sustains, hunger pangs subside, and an overall reduction in caloric intake helps to further weight loss.
Search and Seizure in England, 1642–1700: The Legal Background to the English Critique of General Warrants
This chapter discusses England's laws and uses of search and seizure between 1642 and 1700. During this period, belief and law on search and seizure clashed because the general warrant continued to flourish even as Coke's Institutes and other treatises proclaimed its illegality. General warrants, searches, and arrests continued to be used to apprehend felons, recover stolen property, collect taxes, control weapons, muzzle the press, regulate the guilds, and to discourage vagrancy, game poaching, religious deviance, and political dissent. The thesis against general warrants that evolved between 1642 and 1700 was not a legal reality but a belief that reality contradicted. Conversely, the roots of the amendment grew less from English law than from inherited legal theories about that law.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
Most people who have well-controlled seizures are treated by a primary care doctor. But women who have special concerns about seizures and hormones need referral to a neurologist. A neurologist who specializes in seizures is called an epileptologist. A neuroendocrine specialist is a neurologist with training in hormone disorders and their effects on brain function. These physicians are usually found at hospitals or health care centers with programs devoted to epilepsy treatment, often called Comprehensive Epilepsy Centers.
Talk to your primary care doctor first about your concerns and referral sources covered by your health insurance. Your local Epilepsy Foundation affiliate may have information about specialists in epilepsy care who can help you.
Primary Sources for the Seizure of the Mint - History
See Main Page for a guide to all contents of all sections.
- The Development of the Opposition
- 1905 Party Programs
- Count von Moltke: The Coronation of Tsar Alexander II, 1855 [At this Site]
- Alexander II, The Emancipation Manifesto, March 3 1861 [new style][At SHU]
- Théophile Gautier: The Races on the Neva River, 1870 [At this Site]
- Mary Antin: A Little Jewish Girl in the Russian Pale, 1890 [At this Site]
- Prince Ukhtomskii: Russia's Imperial Destiny, 1891 [At this Site]
- Sergei Witte, On the tasks for economic policy, 1900 [At Durham]
- Commander Vladimir Semenoff: Coaling at Sea, 1905 [At this Site]
The adventures of a Russian ship on its way to the Russo-Japanese war.
- Lindon Bates, Jr.: In a Tartar Tent, c. 1909 [At this Site]
- WEBRussian Revolution on the Web Guide
- WEBHistory of Russia and the former USSR [At Internet Archive]
- WEBThe Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Internet Archive [At Marxists.org]
- WEBThe Leon Trotsky Internet Archive [At Marxists.org]
- WEBThe Josef Stalin Internet Archive [At Marxists.org]
- SUMMARY : The Russian Revolution
- The Development of the Opposition
- Baroness M. De Packh: On The March to Siberia, c. 1840 [At this Site]
- The People's Will
- Maria Sukloff: The Story of An Assassination, extracts [At WSU]
- Anatoly Vasilievich Lunacharsky: George Plekhanov, from Revolutionary Silhouttes [At Marxists.Org], alternative site [At Artbin]
- George V. Plekhanov: The Role of the Individual in History [At Artbin]
- Vladimir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924): Full Texts [index at Hanover] -->
- Vladimir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924): Our Programme, 1899, [At this Site]
- Vladimir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924): What is to Be Done?, 1902, extended excerpts [At this Site]
- Vladimir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924): What is to Be Done?, extracts [At WSU]
- Vladimir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924): The State and Revolution, 1918, extended excerpts [At this Site]
- Vladimir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924): Excerpts from Lenin's Testament, 1922 [At this Site]
Lenin's judegments on his colleagues.
- Manifesto of 17 October 1905 [At Durham]
- The Russian Fundamental Law of 23 April 1906 [At Durham]
- The Stolypin Agrarian Reform: On Peasants Leaving the Land Commune (obshchina), Ukaz of 9 November 1906 [At Durham]
- 1905 Party Programs
- Program of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1905 [At Durham]
- Program of the Russian Constitutional Democratic (Kadet) Party, 1905 [At Durham]
- The Octobrists [At Durham]
- The Nationalists [At Durham]
- Programme of the Union of the Russian People, 1905 [At Durham]
- The Bolsheviks, Russian SDP Program, 1 Aug 1903 [At Durham]
- The Menscheviks: On the Seizure of Power and Participation in a Provisional Government, April 1905 [At Durham]
- Tsar Nicholas II, Abdication, March 15, 1917 [At Durham]
- The First Provisional Government, Izvestiia, 3 March 1917 [At Durham]
- Resolutions adopted by the First All-Russian Congress of Soviest, June 1917 [At Durham]
- Vladmir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924): On His April Theses [At Durham]
- Vladmir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924): Call to Power, Oct 24, 1917 [At this Site]
- Declaration of the Rights of the Toilng and Exploited Peoples, 1917(?) [At Durham]
- Vladmir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924): On the Organization of and Extraordinary Commission to Fight Counter Revolution, Letter to Dzerzhinskii, December 19, 1917 [At Durham]
The origins of the Cheka, NKVD, and KGB.
- Anatoly Vasilievich Lunacharsky: Leo Trotsky, from Revolutionary Silhouttes [At Marxists.org]
- John Reed: 10 Days that Shook the World
Bolshevik Rule to 1924
- WEBLETTONIE - RUSSIE Traités et documents de base - in extenso
A major collection of documents on Soviet history especially as it relates to Lativia. All in French.
- Constitution of the RSFSR, 1918 [At Marxists.org]
- Fundamental Law of Land Socialization, Decree of the Central Executive Committee, February 19, 1918, [At Barnsdale]
- Alexandra Kollontai: The Workers' Opposition, 1921 [At Marxists.Org]
- Alexandra Kollontai: Communism and the Family, 1920 [At Marxists.Org]
- WEBRevelations From the Russian Archives [At LC]
A tremendous resource.
- Josef Stalin (1879-1953): Marxism and the National Question 1913 [At Stalin Internet Archive]
- Josef Stalin (1879-1953): Trotskyism or Leninism? 1924 [At Stalin Internet Archive]
- Josef Stalin (1879-1953): Industrialization of the Country, 1928 [At this Site]
- Josef Stalin (1879-1953): Dialectical and Historical Materialism 1938 [At Stalin Internet Archive]
- Dizzy With Success: Concerning Questions of the Collective Farm Movement, from Pravda, March 2, 1930. [At Durham]
- Collective Farms of the Union 1929-1940 [At Durham]
- Memorandum on the Grain Problem, 1932 [At LC]
The memo which indicates the deliberate start of the Ukrainian famine.
- Constitution of the USSR, 1936 [At Bucknell] or represented as an Organizational Chart [At Brooklyn]
- Joseph Stalin: Dialectical and Historical Materialism (September 1938) [At Atbin] ,
The cult of personality.
- Osip Mandelstam (1934?), and Yevgeny Yevtushenko (1962): Poems on Stalin [At this Site] , 1936, excerpts [At this Site]
- The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre, Heard before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., Moscow, August 19-24, 1936" (Overview) [Divided into 10 files][At Artbin]
- N.I. Bukharin: Last Plea, from "The case of the Anti-Soviet 'Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites', Heard before the Military Colegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., Moscow, March 2-13, 1938 [At Artbin]
- Rapprochement between The Orthodox Church and Soviet Government. Speech of M. G. Karpov at Council of the Orthodox Church, 1945. [At Durham]
The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at the Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 20 January 2021 [CV]
Seizures in alcohol-dependent patients: epidemiology, pathophysiology and management
The relationship between alcohol and seizures is complex and multifaceted. The prevalence of epilepsy in alcohol-dependent patients of western industrialised countries may be at least triple that in the general population, whereas the prevalence of alcoholism is only slightly higher in patients with epilepsy than in the general population. The seizure threshold is raised by alcohol drinking and declines on cessation of drinking. As a result, during withdrawal from alcohol, usually 6-48 hours after the cessation of drinking, seizures may occur. Alcohol acts on the brain through several mechanisms that influence seizure threshold. These include effects on calcium and chloride flux through the ion-gated glutamate NMDA and GABA receptors. During prolonged intoxication, the CNS adapts to the effects of alcohol, resulting in tolerance however, these adaptive effects seem to be transient, disappearing after alcohol intake is stopped. Although the relationship of seizures to alcohol use is likely to be dose dependent and causal, the available clinical data do not suggest that alcohol use results in seizure genesis. However, a genetic predisposition to alcohol withdrawal seizures is possible. Other seizures in alcohol-dependent individuals may be due to concurrent metabolic, toxic, infectious, traumatic, neoplastic and cerebrovascular diseases and are frequently partial-onset seizures. Alcohol abuse is a major precipitant of status epilepticus (9-25% of cases), which may even be the first-ever seizure type. Prompt treatment of alcohol withdrawal seizures is recommended to prevent status epilepticus. During the detoxification process, primary and secondary preventative measures can be taken. A meta-analysis of controlled trials for the primary prevention of alcohol withdrawal seizures demonstrated a highly significant risk reduction for seizures with benzodiazepines and antiepileptic drugs and an increased risk with antipsychotics. A meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials for the secondary prevention of seizures after alcohol withdrawal showed lorazepam to be effective, whereas phenytoin was ineffective. Because withdrawal seizures do not recur if the patient remains abstinent, long-term administration of antiepileptic drugs is unnecessary in abstinent patients. The first seizure not related to alcohol withdrawal should not result in permanent drug treatment in an alcohol-dependent patient, because of poor compliance and the high likelihood of remission. The treatment of alcohol dependence is more important and should be prioritised before the prevention of further seizures.
From January through November 2009, U.S. seizures of illegal drugs in transit exceeded 1,626 metric tons, indicating that DTOs succeed in moving several thousand tons of cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and MDMA into the United States annually. There are unique smuggling and transportation methods associated with each drug type, but overall, drug seizure data and law enforcement reporting indicate that overland smuggling and subsequent transportation by vehicle exceed all other methods combined (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Seizures of Drugs in Transit, Within the United States, in Kilograms, 2009*
Source: National Seizure System.
*Data as of December 1, 2009 table includes seizures of cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and MDMA.
Overland Smuggling Into the United States
Most foreign-produced illicit drugs available in the United States are smuggled into the country overland across the borders with Mexico and, to a much lesser extent, Canada (see Table 1). Overland smuggling methods are relatively consistent (see text box) however, DTOs often shift routes in response to law enforcement pressure, intercartel conflicts or other external factors. Such shifts were observed in 2008 and 2009.
Table 1. Drug Seizures Along the Southwest and Northern Borders, in Kilograms, 2005-2009*
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Cocaine Southwest Border 22,653 28,284 22,656 16,755 17,085 Northern Border >1 2 >1 >1 18 Total 22,654 28,286 22,657 16,756 17,103 Heroin Southwest Border 228 489 404 556 642 Northern Border 3 2 <1 <1 28 Total 231 491 405 557 670 Marijuana Southwest Border 1,034,102 1,146,687 1,472,536 1,253,054 1,489,673 Northern Border 10,447 4,177 2,791 3,184 3,423 Total 1,044,549 1,150,864 1,475,327 1,256,238 1,493,096 MDMA Southwest Border 23 16 39 92 54 Northern Border 479 351 240 616 303 Total 502 367 279 708 357 Methamphetamine Southwest Border 2,918 2,798 1,860 2,201 3,478 Northern Border >1 >1 136 >1 10 Total 2,919 2,799 1,996 2,202 3,488
Source: National Seizure System.
*Data as of December 1, 2009 totals are rounded to the nearest kilogram.
Common Overland Smuggling Methods
Mexican DTOs dominate the transportation of illicit drugs across the Southwest Border. They typically use commercial trucks and private and rental vehicles to smuggle cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin through the 25 land POEs as well as through vast areas of desert and mountainous terrain between POEs. Asian traffickers, OMGs, and Indo-Canadian drug traffickers transport significant quantities of high-potency marijuana and MDMA into the United States across the U.S.-Canada border. They use commercial trucks and private and rental vehicles to transport these drugs through more than 100 land POEs. They also use all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), aircraft, maritime vessels, and couriers on foot to smuggle drugs through vast areas between POEs.
Some smuggling routes and methods for transporting cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana into the United States appear to have shifted, in part because of heightened law enforcement pressure, changes in drug production trends, and evolving market dynamics.
There have been significant and prolonged shifts in cocaine smuggling routes that most likely have been caused by a combination of factors, particularly decreased cocaine production in Colombia, but also enhanced counterdrug efforts in Mexico, high levels of cartel violence, sustained interdiction pressure, and cocaine flow to non-U.S. markets, especially Europe. In 2007, a decline in the amount of cocaine seized along the Southwest Border in the South Texas region--the predominant cocaine smuggling route at the time--resulted in a sharp decline in the amount of cocaine seized overall. As seizure totals for South Texas declined, seizure totals for California POEs began trending upward. Since 2007, cocaine seizures at California POEs have equaled or exceeded seizure totals at South Texas POEs nonetheless, overall seizure totals remain lower than the seizure totals recorded before the significant decline was noted. Although no single cause for the decline in overall seizures can be identified, multiple factors--including a sharp decline in cocaine production in 2008 (see Figure 7 in Cocaine section) and enhanced GOM counterdrug efforts--likely contributed to the decrease in amounts being transported from South America to Mexico and ultimately to the Southwest Border. Moreover, several exceptionally large seizures of cocaine destined for Mexico from South America in 2007 may have initiated the trend. These seizures coincide with the decline in seizures along the Southwest Border and were followed by an unprecedented decline in cocaine availability in many markets in the United States.
Conversely, heroin seizures along the Southwest Border have been increasing, most likely as a result of the growing Mexican influence in heroin production and transportation. This increase in Southwest Border heroin seizures coincides with a decrease in heroin seizures from commercial airlines. In 2008, the total amount of heroin seized along the Southwest Border (556.1 kg) exceeded the total amount of heroin seized from commercial airlines (398.1 kg) for the first time (see Table 2). This shift appears to be directly related to production trends and the changing roles of DTOs. For the past several years, production estimates for Mexican heroin, which is transported primarily overland across the Southwest Border, steadily increased to record levels in 2008. Furthermore, Mexican DTOs have become increasingly involved in the transportation of South American heroin. Meanwhile, production estimates for South American heroin, historically transported into the United States via commercial air, have steadily declined (see Figure 2). This increased availability of Mexican heroin, coupled with increased involvement of Mexican DTOs in trafficking South American heroin, likely have resulted in significantly greater quantities of heroin being transported across the Southwest Border.
Figure 2. Potential Pure Heroin Production Estimates, Colombia, in Metric Tons, 2002-2008*
Source: U.S. Government estimate.
*Estimated figure for 2007 based on partial data because of incomplete survey estimates for 2005 and 2008 not available.
Methamphetamine and marijuana seizures have also increased along the Southwest Border, partly because of increased production. As with heroin, the increase appears to be specific to the drug. Methamphetamine production in Mexico appears to be increasing again after a sustained period of limited production resulting from laws that eventually banned pseudoephedrine in Mexico. Multiple factors may be contributing to an increase in marijuana smuggling, particularly decreased GOM cannabis eradication efforts, which have resulted in elevated production levels.
A review of the smuggling patterns for each of the major drug types reveals myriad factors--some of which are interrelated and some of which are unique to the drug--that affect modes and methods used to transport drugs into the United States. Nonetheless, it is possible that seizures of large quantities of cocaine en route to Mexico and counterdrug efforts may have impacted the ability of major DTOs to smuggle cocaine from South America to Mexico. These factors may also explain the decrease in seizures along the Southwest Border, the decline in cocaine availability in portions of the United States, and the lack of similar long-term declines in the availability of methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana.
Maritime Smuggling Directly Into the United States
Significantly lesser quantities of drugs are smuggled directly into the United States by traffickers using maritime conveyances than by traffickers using overland routes. In 2009, less than 3 percent of all arrival zone drug seizures occurred on commercial and noncommercial maritime conveyances. Nevertheless, some DTOs continue to use maritime smuggling methods to move illegal drugs into the United States (see text box), and like overland smugglers, some of these maritime smugglers shifted their operations in 2008 and 2009 in response to law enforcement pressure or gaps in interdiction coverage.
Common Maritime Smuggling Methods
Various DTOs--most notably Colombian but also Dominican, Jamaican, Puerto Rican, and Venezuelan--transport cocaine and lesser amounts of heroin and marijuana to the United States using a variety of conveyances, including container ships, cruise ships, commercial fishing vessels, recreation vessels, and go-fast boats. The drugs are typically concealed in hidden compartments, commingled with legitimate goods, or couriered by passenger or crew members on maritime vessels. Traffickers also have increasingly used self-propelled semisubmersibles (SPSSs) a to transport cocaine from South America to Mexico. The use of SPSSs affords traffickers the ability to covertly transport large quantities of drugs.
a. Self-propelled semisubmersible vessels are maritime vessels used by traffickers to transport illicit drugs. These vessels typically protrude only a few inches above the surface of the water, making them very difficult to detect visually. SPSSs typically have a four-man crew and are capable of carrying multiton quantities of cocaine.
Traffickers used private maritime vessels to smuggle drugs into the United States during 2009 through Puerto Rico, South Florida, South Texas, and southern California, and Mexican DTOs sometimes smuggle drugs by maritime means to avoid law enforcement scrutiny along the Southwest Border.
The primary threat from drug smuggling via private vessels is from Caribbean-based traffickers exploiting the Puerto Rico and Florida coastlines. Traffickers transported mostly cocaine from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico, although they smuggled lesser amounts of heroin and MDMA, sometimes commingled with cocaine loads. Caribbean traffickers also smuggled cocaine, heroin, and marijuana from the Bahamas to areas of South Florida between Miami and Palm Beach. Seizure totals and routes remained relatively constant compared with those of previous years.
Mexican traffickers seeking to avoid scrutiny along the Southwest Border used private vessels to smuggle marijuana and cocaine into the United States during 2009. Incidents involving kilogram packages of cocaine and marijuana washing up or being found abandoned along the South Texas coastline increased, particularly in the South Padre Island area, during the first half of the year. By the end of December, more than 114 kilograms of cocaine had been recovered in the region. In comparison, only 1 kilogram was recovered in the region during 2008. Federal investigators believe that the smugglers typically depart from Tamaulipas State in northern Mexico and make short hops to the Texas coastline. Mexican traffickers also used private vessels in 2009 to smuggle marijuana from the northern Mexico state of Baja California to southern California. In fact, in 2009, more than 3.1 metric tons of marijuana were reported to have been seized from private vessels arriving in southern California, primarily the San Diego area.
Commercial maritime vessels, especially maritime containers, remain a viable conveyance for smuggling drugs directly into the United States, but seizure data and law enforcement reporting indicate that this smuggling method continues to account for a relatively small portion of the nation's illicit drug supply.
Traffickers use commercial maritime vessels to smuggle sizable quantities of drugs into the United States, but data suggest that other conveyance methods are preferred by smugglers. Traffickers often hide drugs among legitimate cargo in maritime containers, a fraction of which are inspected. Analysis of commercial maritime seizure data for 2004 through 2009 indicates that cocaine and marijuana are most often smuggled in commercial maritime vessels from Caribbean locations, such as the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica, into East Coast ports in Florida and New Jersey. Traffickers also use commercial vessels to smuggle cocaine from the Dominican Republic into Puerto Rico. Smaller amounts of heroin, typically 2 kilograms or less, are occasionally smuggled by cruise ship passengers working for Caribbean trafficking organizations into East Coast ports however, this smuggling technique appears to have declined since 2006. Seizure data indicate that methamphetamine is rarely smuggled into the United States on commercial maritime vessels.
Despite the fact that sizable quantities of drugs are seized annually from commercial maritime vessels arriving in the United States, the dominance of Mexican trafficking organizations as the primary transporters of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine to the United States results in commercial maritime seizure totals that are far less than Southwest Border seizure totals. Seizure data for 2009 show that the amount seized from commercial maritime vessels remains less than 1 percent (6,015 kg of 828,223 kg) of the amount seized at the Southwest Border. Law enforcement reporting confirms that Caribbean and South American traffickers are more likely than Mexican traffickers to take advantage of commercial maritime vessels as a smuggling conveyance to supply their much smaller U.S. distribution networks. Moreover, large quantities of drugs seized at U.S. ports are often destined for distribution in countries other than the United States. Many drug shipments concealed in commercial maritime containers by Caribbean and South American traffickers are intercepted by U.S. authorities as they transit the United States en route to markets in Europe and Asia.
The Logistics of Transporting Drug Shipments
DTOs have well-established transportation networks and often transport illicit drug shipments directly to drug markets throughout the United States. Some DTOs relinquish control by distributing illicit drugs from stash locations to traffickers who purchase these drugs and then transport the shipments themselves to distribution areas. DTOs often hire independent drug transportation groups to transport drugs, insulating themselves from law enforcement investigations and compartmentalizing trafficking operations. These transporters are hired for the sole purpose of moving drug shipments, and they operate in cells that are separate from other DTO operations. As a result, seizures of illicit drugs from transporters often yield little or no information to law enforcement officials about other DTO members or DTO operations. For example, Colombian DTOs often employ Mexican traffickers whose successful transportation networks allow these DTOs to circumvent the problems caused by law enforcement disruption of their own transportation routes.
Drug shipments are typically stashed in ranches, warehouses, residences, and trailers near primary points of entry into the United States for consolidation, distribution, and subsequent transport to drug markets throughout the United States. To transport drugs, traffickers primarily use commercial trucks and privately owned and rental vehicles equipped with hidden compartments and natural voids in the vehicles. Additionally, bulk quantities of illicit drugs are sometimes commingled with legitimate goods in commercial trucks. Many drug traffickers use postal and package delivery services to transport illicit drugs within the United States and, to a much lesser extent, use couriers and cargo shipments on aircraft, buses, and trains.
Air Smuggling Into the United States
The amount of drugs smuggled into the United States by couriers and in cargo aboard commercial aircraft is significantly less than the amount smuggled by other means. In 2009, the total amount seized from commercial aircraft for cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, and MDMA was less than for any other conveyance. Drug seizure data show that only 24 percent of heroin seizures, 15 percent of MDMA seizures, 6 percent of cocaine seizures, and less than 1 percent each of methamphetamine and marijuana seizures were from commercial air conveyances.
The use of commercial air to smuggle heroin into the United States is rapidly declining, while heroin smuggling over the Southwest Border is increasing.
The amount of heroin seized at commercial air POEs decreased 56.2 percent (909 kg to 398 kg) from 2004 through 2008. The decrease is partially attributable to a shift in the smuggling of South American heroin by couriers on commercial flights to overland transportation across the Southwest Border as well as increased airport interdiction activities in Colombian airports. Colombian DTOs are now, to a large extent, relying on Mexican DTOs to smuggle heroin overland into the United States rather than conducting their own air courier smuggling operations. At the same time that heroin seizures decreased at commercial air POEs, heroin seizures at Southwest Border POEs increased 44.0 percent (386 kg to 556 kg), and preliminary seizure data indicate that Southwest Border heroin seizures reached a record high in 2009 (see Table 2).
Table 2. Heroin Seizures at Southwest Border Area and Commercial Air POEs, in Kilograms, 2004-2009*
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* Southwest Border 386 229 489 362 556 642 Commercial Air POEs 909 740 529 424 398 199
Source: National Seizure System.
*Data as of December 1, 2009.
The decline in commercial air smuggling for heroin is attributable to a number of factors, including decreasing South American heroin production and a shift to smuggling routes across the Southwest Border. Most of the heroin seized at air POEs in previous years was seized from South American heroin couriers. However, South American heroin production appears to have decreased sharply since 2003 (see Figure 2).
The Flow of Drugs Within the United States
There are 327 official U.S. land, maritime, and air POEs however, a relatively few POEs account for most of the drug flow into the United States. In fact, 88 percent of all drug seizures occurred at just 20 POEs. From these and other POEs, drug shipments are transported to dozens of national and regional distribution centers through eight principal corridors to the major drug markets within the United States. (See Figure 3.)
Figure 3. Drug Transportation Corridors in the United States
Source: Federal, state, and local law enforcement data and reporting.
Among the eight principal drug corridors, Corridor A is particularly vital to DTOs. Corridor A is the primary route for DTOs transporting multiton quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine from the Southwest Border to eastern U.S. drug markets, many of the largest drug markets in the country. Within Corridor A, Interstate 10 as well as Interstates 8 and 20 are among those most used by drug couriers, as evidenced by drug seizure data showing that from 2008 through October 2009, nearly 19 percent of all reported interstate cocaine seizures and 7 percent of all reported interstate heroin seizures occurred on these routes.
Corridor B is also important to DTOs, especially those moving methamphetamine and marijuana produced in California or Mexico to major market areas in western, central, or eastern states. Interstates 15, 80, 70, and 40 are the leading routes through Corridor B, and seizures on these interstates accounted for 46 percent of all reported methamphetamine seizures and 31 percent of all marijuana seizures on interstates from 2008 through October 2009.
Drug couriers moving drugs through the various corridors are often destined for one of the relatively few primary U.S. drug markets, where there are large drug user populations and where drugs are further distributed to smaller markets. There are relatively little data available to objectively rank cities as leading or lesser drug markets. Nevertheless, analysis of national seizure data that identify the destination and origination of drug shipments shows that seven city areas (Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Miami, New York, and Tucson) are identified more often than any other cities as major points of both origination 12 and destination for drug shipments (see Table 3).
Table 3. Metropolitan Areas Most Often Identified as Origination and Destination Points for Seized Drug Shipments, by Drug, 2008-2009*