efforts to control domestically grown i/i … · and destroy marijuana grown outdoors. in 1981, the...
TRANSCRIPT
AD-A144 463 LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TO CONTROL DOMESTICALLY GROWN i/iMRRIJUANA(U) GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WRSHINGTON DCGENERAL GOVERNMENT DIV 25 MAY 84 GRO/GGD-84-77
UNCLASSIFIED F/G 6/3 NLmmmmmmmmmEhBIEEBIBhEHEEI lllllllllll
I llfffll fl**flflfl,lllhhlllllEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlfflfflfIIIIm.
110111.011ga
jjjj-2-51.8
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS- 1963-A
BY THE U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICEReport To The Subcommittee On GovernmentInformation, Justice, And Agriculture,Committee On Government OperationsHouse Of Representatives
Law Enforcement Efforts To ControlDomestically Grown Marijuana
cv,
The amount of marijuana grown in theUnited States is increasing. It accounted foran estimated 15 percent of the total amountof marijuana available in the United States
S in 1982 compared with an estimated 9 per-cent in 1981. The estimated total amountavailable in the United States in 1982 wasbetween 12,340 and 14,090 metric tons,and in 1981, the amount was between( 9,600 and 13,900 metric tons.
Controlling domestic marijuana cultivationis primarily a state and local law enforce-ment responsibility. The Drug EnforcementAdministration provides and coordinatesfederal assistance.
Most states expect domestic marijuana pro-duction to continue to increase. In respond-ing to a GAO questionnaire, the states re-ported that more resources are needed tocombat this expected growth. D T IC
S V, S7-1 -, AUG 2 2 1984
E
Li.I 7/GAO/,GOO-84-77'Ic()OUN' X\ MAY 25, 1984
.. I84 08 22 048W t"'' p blcWa wimA sld. :
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICEWASHINGTON, D.C. 205M
B-214358
The Honorable Glenn EnglishChairman, Subcommittee on Government
Information, Justice, and AgricultureCommittee on Government OperationsHouse of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you requested on March 22, 1983, we conducted a reviewof federal assistance addressing the domestic marijuana cultiva- .tion problem. This report primarily describes the Drug Enforce-ment Administration's domestic marijuana eradication and sup-pression state assistance program. It also discusses otherfederal assistance provided to the states to combat the problem.
In addition, the report discusses actions taken by the 0National Guard Bureau and the Drug Enforcement Administrationduring the course of our review which should improve theeradication effort.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announceits contents earlier, we plan no farther distribution of thisreport until 30 days from the date of the report. At that timewe will send copies to interested parties and make copies avail-able to others upon request.
Sincerely yours,
%,> C . -Accession ForNTIS GRI
William J. Anderson DTIC TABDirector Unannounced El _ -
Justification
By- Distribution/
Availability CodesAvnil and/or . . -
Dist Special
Li , n , nl ln . .. . . . . | D B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TOREPORT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTROL DOMESTICALLY GROWNGOVERNMENT INFORMATION, JUSTICE, MARIJUANAAND AGRICULTURE, COMMITTEE ON |GOVERNMENT OPERATIONSHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DIGEST
Cultivation of marijuana in the United Statesis increasing. The federal government esti-mated that domestically produced marijuanaaccounted for 15 percent of the total amountavailable in the United States in 1982, upfrom an estimated 9 percent of the totalavailable in 1981. The estimated total amountavailable in the United States in 1982 wasbetween 12,340 and 14,090 metric tons, and in1981, the amount was between 9,600 and 13,900metric tons.
According to law enforcement agencies, mari-juana is currently being cultivated in all 50states. Much of this marijuana is highlypotent and is potentially more harmful to con-sumers than most imported types of marijuana.State law enforcement agencies responsible forcontrolling domestic marijuana expect theamount grown to increase in the future.
The Chairman of the Subcommittee on GovernmentInformation, Justice, and Agriculture, HouseCommittee on Government Operations, requestedthat GAO evaluate federal activities address-ing the domestic marijuana problem. As agreedto with the Subcommittee, GAO focused itsevaluation primarily on the Drug EnforcementAdministration's (DEA's) national DomesticMarijuana Eradication/Suppression Programwhich was established to assist the states.The results of the review are primarily based
on questionnaire responses obtained from statelaw enforcement agencies.
GAO did not obtain agency comments on thisreport.
Tear Sheet
......... ...... .. . .. .. . ... .. ... . .. .. . : ' . .... . .. . .... . . | II I I' I | | I | |
r~. - -.
.4 pSTATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIESARE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLEFOR CONTROLLING DOMESTICMARIJUANA CULTIVATION
SThe Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of1972 established a Strategy Council on DrugAbuse. The council consists of representa-tives from the White House Drug Abuse PolicyOffice; the Departments of Justice, State,Defense, Treasury; and eight other departmentsand independent agencies. The council'sstrategy outlines the nation's approach tocontrolling illegal drugs. The strategyplaces the primary responsibility for reducingdomestic marijuana cultivation with state andlocal authorities, and designates the federalgovernment's role as one of leadership, coor-dination, and support. (See p. 11.)
DEA, the principal federal agency for drug lawenforcement, is responsible for assisting thestate and local agencies in their efforts tocontrol marijuana cultivation. DEA assistedtwo states in 1979 and 1980 and seven statesin 1981. In 1982, DEA formalized its assis-tance to the states by establishing a nationalDomestic Marijuana/Suppression Program, andassisted 25 states. By 1983, 40 states wereparticipating in DEA's marijuana program. DEAgave the 40 states a total of $1.75 millionand provided some training, equipment, and asmall number of personnel. Other federalagencies also provided similar assistance.(See pp. 12 to 13.)
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS HAVEDISRUPTED CULTIVATION METHODSAND STATES CLAIM MORE RESOURCESNEEDED
In responding to a GAO questionnaire, thestate law enforcement agencies participatingin DEA's 1983 program reported that the majorimpact of their enforcement efforts was thatgrowers changed their cultivation methods.According to law enforcement agencies, manygrowers are moving their operations indoors,growing smaller and scattered plots outdoors,and taking other measures to better hide theircrops grown outdoors. (See p. 21.)
ii
Most states reported that they expect domesticmarijuana production to continue to increaseduring 1984 and 1985, with more indoor culti-vation and increasing involvement of large-scale criminal organizations. State lawenforcement agencies indicated that variousresources are needed to increase the impact ofenforcement efforts against both indoor andoutdoor cultivation in their states. Theagencies listed intelligence (data on domesticmarijuana trafficking), helicopters, and off-road vehicles as the most needed resources.(See pp. 22 to 24.)
MILITARY ASSISTANCE MAYBE AVAILABLE TO MEET SOMEOF THE STATES' NEEDS
The National Guard and the Department ofDefense (DOD) may be able to help meet some ofthe state and local law enforcement needs,particularly with air support to help locateand destroy marijuana grown outdoors.
In 1981, the Congress enacted legislation (10U.S.C. 371-378) designed to encourage militaryassistance to civilian law enforcement agen-cies. Although this legislation restricts DODfrom providing certain law enforcement assis-tance (search, seizures, and arrest), itallows DOD to furnish assistance which wouldbe helpful to domestic marijuana enforcementefforts. (See p. 27.)
DOD may provide information on marijuana plotssighted during DOD training flights; loanequipment, such as helicopters and off-roadvehicles; provide base facilities; and traincivilian law enforcement personnel to operateDOD-loaned equipment. Two state law enforce-ment agencies received DOD support for mari-juana enforcement efforts during 1983. Manyagencies told GAO that they either wereunaware that DOD assistance may have beenavailable or did not know how to request it.(See pp. 27 to 28.)
Under its Domestic Marijuana Eradication/Suppression Program, DEA is responsible forproviding program guidance to the states andcoordinating the assistance other federal
Ter Sh t iii
. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . ! m - i - - • i m l • i.
agencies can provide. According to DEA offi-cials, they did not provide states with muchinformation on DOD assistance in 1983 becauseDEA was still in the learning stage regardingwhat DOD could provide law enforcement agen-cies under the 1981 legislation. During GAO'sevaluation, DEA issued guidance to its fieldoffices explaining the types of militaryresources that may be available to assiststate domestic marijuana programs. (See pp.33 to 34.)
Greater assistance from the National Guard mayhave been possible. National Guard unitslimited their assistance during federallyfunded (Title 32, U.S. Code) Guard training Amissions to providing law enforcement agencieswith information on suspected marijuanaplants. Since case law reveals that theNational Guard is not generally considered aspart of the armed forces when training, DODregulations that restrict direct military sup-port to civilian law enforcement need not beapplied to Guard units while in Title 32training. (See pp. 26, 29 to 32.)
Without these restrictions, Guard units maydirectly support marijuana eradication raidsby providing helicopters with crews to trans-port law enforcement officers and seized mari-juana plants, if the operation is compatiblewith required Guard training. However,National Guard headquarters guidelines did notspecifically state that this type of supportcan be provided during training, and someGuard units informed state law enforcementagencies that such assistance was prohibitedby the guidelines. (See pp. 26, 32, and 33.)
During the review, GAO suggested to the Chief,National Guard Bureau that the Guard amend itsdrug enforcement support guidelines to specifythe types of direct assistance that Guardunits in training are authorized to providelaw enforcement authorities, and the con-ditions under which this type of assistancemay be provided. By letter dated April 25,1984, the Chief, National Guard Bureau clari-fied its drug enforcement support guidelinesas suggested by GAO. (See pp. 34 to 35.)
iiv
S
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCE-MENT AGENCIES TO INCREASEINTELLIGENCE EFFORTS ONDOMESTIC MARIJUANA OPERATIONS
Not much is known about the amount of mari-juana grown indoors, the involvement of largecriminal organizations, and the patterns ofdomestic marijuana distribution. In responseto a GAO questionnaire, state law enforcementagencies in DEA's program indicated that addi-tional efforts are needed to collect and ana-lyze intelligence regarding cultivators anddistributors. Many of the states plan toincrease their efforts in this area. (Seepp. 38, 39, and 40.)
Acquiring this information is particularlyimportant if the amount of marijuana grownindoors and the number of large-scale cultiva-tion and distribution organizations continueto increase as most of the state agenciesexpect. Intelligence activities identifyingthese operations may help law enforcementagencies decide where to direct their limitedresources so the greatest impact can beachieved in combatting the domestic marijuanaproblem. (See pp. 40 and 41.) P
T
Tear Sheet v
C o n t e n t s I
Page
DIGEST i
CHAPTER
DOMESTIC MARIJUANA IS BECOMING A SUBSTAN-TIAL PORTION OF THE U.S. MARKET 1Marijuana is being grown nationwide I SDomestic marijuana is highly potent 5Objectives, scope, and methodology 7
2 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS HELPING STATEAND LOCAL AUTHORITIES COMBAT THECULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA 11
Federal strategy for combattingdomestic marijuana 11
DEA has increased its assistance tothe states for marijuana planteradication/suppression 12
Other federal agencies are also helping 13A model state program 14
3 ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS HAVE DISRUPTEDCULTIVATION METHODS AND STATESCLAIM MORE RESOURCES NEEDED 21
Impact of eradication and suppressionefforts 21
Additional resources needed bythe states 23
Conclusions 25
4 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND NATIONALGUARD RESOURCES CAN BE USED IN THEDOMESTIC MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 26National Guard and DOD resources are
needed by state and local agencies 26DOD assistance may be available 27Laws and regulations affecting National
Guard assistance while in trainingstatus 28
Greater DEA support and coordinationare needed to help states obtainmilitary assistance 33
Conclusions 34
5 STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES PLAN TO INCREASEEMPHASIS ON INTELLIGENCE 36
Intelligence is important to drug lawenforcement effectiveness 36
Intelligence is a small portion of thestates' efforts 37
.... o. . . . . - . . . .
Page
Law enforcement agencies have limitedknowledge of domestic marijuanaoperations 38
Conclusions 41
APPENDIX
I Letter dated March 22, 1983, from Chairman,Subcommittee on Government Information,Justice, and Agriculture, House Committeeon Government Operations 42
II Funds allocated to states in DEA's DomesticMarijuana Eradication/Suppression Program 44
III Summary of responses by 47 state law
enforcement agencies 45
ABBREVIATIONS
BLM Bureau of Land ManagementDAWN Drug Abuse Warning NetworkDEA Drug Enforcement AdministrationDOD Department of DefenseGAO General Accounting OfficeFBI Federal Bureau of InvestigationNCJA National Criminal Justice AssociationNGA National Governors' AssociationNIDA National Institute on Drug AbuseNNICC National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers CommitteeNORML National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
LawsRISS Regional Information Sharing SystemsSDEA State Drug Enforcement AllianceTHC delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinolWSIN Western States Information Network
CHAPTER 1
DOMESTIC MARIJUANA IS BECOMING A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE U.S. MARKET
The supply of "homegrown" marijuana on the illegal markethas been steadily increasing. Domestic marijuana accounted foran %stimated 15 percent of all the marijuana (12,340 to 14,090metric tons) available in the United States during 1982. Thisis approximately double the estimated domestic marijuana supplyin 1980. Much of this marijuana is more potent, more expensive,and potentially more harmful to consumers than most importedmarijuana. Such high-grade marijuana is in demand and commandspremium prices. This may be a reason for the increased produc-tion.
The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Information,Justice, and Agriculture, House Committee on Government Opera-tions, asked GAO to evaluate the federal activities that addressthis problem. We focused our evaluation primarily on the DrugEnforcement Administration's (DEA's) national Domestic MarijuanaEradication/Suppression Program because it is the principalmeans by which the federal government is helping the statescombat domestic marijuana.1
MARIJUANA IS BEING GROWN NATIONWIDE
While marijuana production estimates have been unreliable,DEA has concluded that the United States is becoming a majorsource of marijuana. According to DEA, domestic marijuana cul-tivation in the late 1970s was primarily limited to a fewstates. By 1983, however, domestic marijuana was being seizedby law enforcement agencies in all 50 states, mostly in smallplots on privately owned land.
State law enforcement agencies, in responding to our ques-tionnaire (see app. III), reported that the seriousness of thedomestic marijuana problem in their states has grown consid-erably over the past few years. Our questionnaire results show
lAn ongoing GAO evaluation is addressing the Department of Agri-culture's Forest Service and the Department of Interior's Bureauof Land Management and National Park Service efforts to reducemarijuana cultivation in national forests and on other federallands.
that 15 of 47 states 2 considered marijuana cultivation to be avery major problem in 1983, while 4 states considered it to be avery major problem between 1975 and 1980. Additionally, thenumber of states considering marijuana cultivation as somewhatof a major problem increased from 7 during the period 1975 to1980 to 18 in 1983. The table below shows how all 47 stateagencies perceived their states' marijuana cultivation problemsover time periods in response to our questionnaire.
Perceived Seriousness of DomesticMarijuana Cultivation
Number of States
Very Somewhatmajor a major Moderate Little No Don't
Time period problem problem problem problem problem know
1983 15 18 10 3 0 11981-1982 11 13 17 6 0 01975-1980 4 7 18 14 1 3Prior to 1975 2 2 4 23 4 12
Marijuana plant eradication statistics for 1982 and 1983also disclose that domestic marijuana production has beenincreasing. According to DEA, its analysis of 1982 seizuresrevealed that 38 percent more domestic marijuana was eradicatedthan the federal government reported grown in the previousyear. DEA reported that 1,653 metric tons of marijuana (2.6 -
million plants) were eradicated in the United States during1982, whereas the federal estimate for the total domestic mari-juana supply to the U.S. market in 1981 was 900 to 1,200 metrictons. In 1983, according to DEA, 3.8 million plants wereseized.
Estimates prepared by the National Narcotics IntelligenceConsumers Committee (NNICC),3 a committee composed of represen-tatives from DEA and other federal agencies which have an inter-est in illicit drug trafficking, show that domestic marijuana
2We analyzed the questionnaire responses of 47 state lawenforcement agencies responsible for controlling domesticmarijuana in their states (see p. 9).
3NNICC estimates are based on intelligence input from 10 memberagencies, including DEA, FBI, and the National Institute on DrugAbuse.
2
has significantly increased as a percentage of the total U.S.marijuana market. NNICC estimated that domestic marijuanasupplied approximately 7 percent (700 to 1,000 metric tons) ofthe U.S. market in both 1979 and 1980. For 1981, NNICC esti-mated that the domestic marijuana share had increased to 9 per- Icent (900 to 1,200 metric tons), and NNICC's estimate for 1982is that domestic marijuana accounted for 15 percent (2,000metric tons) of the total supply available in the United States.
NNICC's Estimated Supply of Marijuanato the U.S. Market, 1982 S 6
Country Quantity Percentage ofof origin (metric tons) total supply
United States 2,000 15
Colombia 7,000 - 8,000 57
Jamaica 1,750 - 2,500 16
Mexico 750 6
Other 840 6
Total 12,340 - 14,090 100
There are those who believe that domestic marijuana has .captured a significantly greater share of the U.S. market thanNNICC's estimated 15 percent. For years, the National Organiza-tion for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)4 has said thatthe federal government's estimates were too low. According toNORML's Domestic Marijuana Cultivation Report, domestic mari-juana made up 50 percent (7,500 metric tons) of an estimated A15,000 metric tons available on the U.S. market in 1983. TheAttorney General in Oregon has said that narcotics officers inhis state believe that domestic marijuana represents well over50 percent of the total U.S. supply.
4NORML is a non-profit membership organization which lobbies forthe reform of laws making marijuana an illegal substance. . 9NORML's goal is to remove marijuana offenses from the criminaljustice system and to substitute regulation and taxation as amethod for controlling marijuana.
3
Efforts have been made to developbetter production estimates
The need for better information to determine the extent ofdomestic marijuana cultivation has long been recognized by DEA 9and other federal agencies. In 1979, DEA and the White HouseDrug Abuse Policy Office agreed that the overall collection ofintelligence regarding the amount of domestic marijuana beingproduced was inadequate in that very little solid data had beendeveloped.
In 1982, DEA began to develop a data base to estimatedomestic marijuana production. Eradication statistics and other
*information were requested from state law enforcement agenciesin each of the 50 states. Despite these efforts, DEA officialsconsidered the 1982 estimates and the methods used to calculatethem as imprecise.
In 1983, greater efforts were made to develop more accurateestimates. The White House Drug Abuse Policy Office initiatedan interagency effort that established standards for estimatingthe quantity of marijuana produced in the United States. DEAmade major refinements in its data collection activities and re- pquested uniform statistics on a monthly basis from the 40 statesin its program concerning the results of their eradicationefforts. According to DEA officials, the 1983 eradication sta-tistics prepared by DEA on the basis of the states' reports arean improvement over previous years' statistics.
Marijuana is typically cultivatedin small plots on private land
State law enforcement agencies reported that the majorityof domestic marijuana is cultivated on privately owned land.Estimates in our questionnaire for 46 states show that an aver-age of 79 percent of the marijuana was grown on land eitherowned, leased, or rented by the grower, or on private land usedby the grower with or without the owner's permission. Thestates estimated that 14 percent of the marijuana was grown onfederal land and 8 percent on other public lands.
The states also reported that an average of 57 percent ofthe marijuana eradicated in 1983 was found in plots containingfewer than 100 plants, and 29 percent in plots containing 100 to499 plants. Fourteen percent of the eradicated marijuana wasfound in plots containing 500 or more plants.
42
DOMESTIC MARIJUANA ISHIGHLY POTENT
The seriousness of the domestic marijuana problem can bemeasured in terms of quality as well as quantity. In recentyears, there has been an increase in the domestic cultivation ofmarijuana using the sinsemilla technique, which can produce avery potent form of marijuana. This has caused increased con-cern over the health consequences of marijuana use. Also,because of its increased potency, high-grade marijuana hasbecome highly sought, allowing growers to charge premium pricesand reap large profits. These profits encourage further culti-vation.
More high-grade marijuana isbeing produced
Marijuana has the ability to intoxicate its users, primar-ily because of the psychoactive or mind-altering ingredientcalled delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. It is the THC con-tent, found at various concentrations in different parts of theplant, which determines the plant's potency. The sinsemillatechnique is a relatively new growing method which produceslarge amounts of THC. In this labor-intensive technique, culti-vators prevent the pollination of female marijuana plants byremoving the male plants before they release pollen. Thiscauses the female plants to increase the amount of THC resin intheir flowering buds, resulting in a seedless strain of mari-juana commonly known as sinsemilla.
Growers use the sinsemilla technique to produce high-grademarijuana with THC levels exceeding those found in Colombian orother nonsinsemilla types of marijuana. The White House DrugAbuse Policy Office reports that sinsemilla THC content canrange up to 11 percent. By comparison, most Colombian, Mexican,and Jamaican marijuana has a THC content of 2 to 4 percent.
Growers are practicing sinsemilla cultivation in almostevery state. Until recently, cultivation using the sinsemillatechnique occurred primarily in Hawaii and California. Thirty-eight of 47 state law enforcement agencies reported that thecultivation of sinsemilla in their states had increased duringthe past 3 years. Estimates by respondents to our questionnairedisclosed that an average of 28 percent of the marijuana eradi-cated in 42 states during 1983 was cultivated using the sinse-milla technique. DEA's estimate for 1983 is that 26 percent ofthe eradicated marijuana was sinsemilla.
Sinsemilla is not the only domestic marijuana with a highTHC content being cultivated. Many growers experiment with and
5 *
- l n m I ~ lli il . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..5.
produce other exotic varieties of high-grade marijuana. Suchmarijuana may be included in the overall estimates of sinsemillaeradicated in 1983.
High-potency marijuana is increasinghealth concerns
Over the years, there has been a host of studies concerningthe effects of marijuana on the health of users. According to a1982 Marijuana and Health report issued by the Institute ofMedicine of the National Academy of Sciences,5
"Scientific evidence published to date indicates thatmarijuana has a broad range of psychological and bio-logical effects, some of which, at least under certainconditions, are harmful to human health."
According to the Surgeon General, some of the known or sus-pected effects attributed to the use of marijuana are: impairedshort-term memory and slowed learning; impaired lung functionsimilar to that found in cigarette smokers; decreased spermcount; interference with ovulation and prenatal development;impaired immune response; possible adverse effects on heartfunction; and by-products of marijuana remaining in body fat forseveral weeks with unknown consequences. Another major concernis the presumed link between the use of large amounts of mari-juana, particularly among young consumers, and the "amotiva-tional syndrome" characterized by apathy and loss of motivation.
Researchers state that the use of high-potency marijuanamay result in more serious problems than suspected from pastresearch that was based on lower potency marijuana. Moreover,the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)6 reported a 13-percentincrease in the number of marijuana-related hospital emergenciesduring 1982, which, according to NNICC, possibly reflects theincreased abuse of high-potency marijuana.
Although different perspectives on the health consequencesof marijuana consumption exist, there is a consensus that mari-juana is potentially hazardous to one's health and that theavailability of substantially more potent varieties necessitates
5Marijuana and Health, report of a study by a Committee of theInstitute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, 1982.
6DAWN is a nationwide program that gathers data on drug abusefrom hospital emergency rooms and medical examiners in selectedlocations throughout the United States.
6
a re-evaluation of the hazards involving high-potency mari-juana. The 1982 report by the National Academy of Sciences'Institute of Medicine concludes, "What little we know for cer-tain about the effects of marijuana on human health--and allthat we have reason to suspect--justifies serious national con-cern."
Large profits are being made
The quality of marijuana is also significant from a commer-cial merchandising standpoint. According to a NNICC reportassessing U.S. drug supplies in 1982, domestic marijuana is con-sidered to be a superior product by users, and lower gradeimported marijuana has become less attractive. The recognizedsuperior potency of sinsemilla allows growers to reap hugeprofits. Domestic sinsemilla commands prices of $1,200 to -$2,600 per pound versus $700 to $800 per pound for Colombianmarijuana. For example, one grower in Northern California toldlaw enforcement officials that he was to receive $500,000 from abuyer for his 250 sinsemilla plants upon harvest.
The amount of money that can be made from marijuana culti-vation attracts different types of people to this illegal busi-ness. Backgrounds of cultivators include moonshiners, farmers,housewives, artists, carpenters, mechanics, and professionals.For example, in Mississippi, a teacher who had received ateaching commendation was responsible for growing one of thelargest crops seized during the the state's 1982 eradicationefforts. Some DEA and state officials said they fear that thepotential for large profits will increasingly attract violentcriminals and will corrupt legitimate businesses and publicofficials.
Growers sometimes use various means to protect their lucra-tive crops against poachers, trespassers, and law enforcementofficers. For example, alarms, attack dogs, booby traps, andarmed guards have been encountered. Law enforcement officialsreported that they seized 984 weapons during DEA's 1983 domesticmarijuana program.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 0 S
We conducted our evaluation in accordance with the subcom-mittee's request. The subcommittee requested that we evaluatethe current programs within DEA and other federal agencies whichaddress the domestic marijuana problem, and to specificallyaddress
--the current roles, responsibilities, and expenditures ofthe federal agencies that assist state and local agencieswith this problem;
7
--what the states' needs may be and how satisfied they arewith the federal assistance they currently receive;
--how states have used the changes in Posse Comitatuslegislation to request military assistance in detectingmarijuana growth;
--how current intelligence estimates of domestic productionare assembled and what intelligence methods are used todetect, destroy, and measure illegal domestic marijuana;
--to what extent federal agencies used the multistateregional intelligence networks to collect intelligence inthis area.
As agreed to with the subcommittee, we focused our evalua-tion primarily on DEA's Domestic Marijuana Eradication/Suppression Program because it is the principal means by whichthe federal government is helping the states with this problem.We also obtained some information concerning other federalassistance to the states.
To accomplish our objectives, we performed work inWashington, D.C. as well as in certain states. The states weselected differed significantly in the amount of marijuana pre-viously eradicated, and the year they started receiving DEAassistance for eradication. We performed work at the followingoffices:
--DEA headquarters, the National Guard Bureau, the Depart-ment of Defense (DOD), and the White House Drug AbusePolicy Office in Washington, D.C.;
--DEA field offices in California, Colorado, Georgia,Hawaii, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah;
--State law enforcement agencies in California, Colorado,Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, as well as policedepartments in Honolulu, Hilo, and Kahului, Hawaii;
--National Guard units in Georgia, Hawaii, and Ohio; and
--Regional Information Sharing Systems projects in Cali-fornia, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Tennessee.
Our work included:
--discussions and interviews with agency officials;
8
-0
--review of DEA and DOD policies, procedures, regulations,and practices;
--examination and summarization of agencies' reports,files, correspondence, statistical data, budgetary data, Sand congressional reports, hearings, and legislation;
--review of DEA's national domestic marijuana eradicationstatistics and cultivation estimates, and National Narco-tics Intelligence Consumers Committee estimates of domes-tic marijuana production;and
--observation of a marijuana eradication raid by lawenforcement officers in northern California.
In addition to our fieldwork, we sent a standardized ques-tionnaire to the state law enforcement agency responsible for Scontrolling domestic marijuana in each of the 50 states. Werequested information, generally for calendar year 1983, con-cerning the nature and extent of domestic marijuana cultivationand distribution, eradication and enforcement efforts and theirimpact, federal assistance, intelligence collection, and inves-tigations. For the 10 states not participating in DEA's 1983 6domestic marijuana program, we also requested information con-cerning eradication raids and the reason DEA funding was notreceived.
Ninety-eight percent (49 of 50) of the state agenciesresponded and answered all or parts of our questionnaires. We 0excluded 2 of the 49 questionnaires from our analysis, however,because the responses did not apply to all domestic marijuanaeradication and suppression activities within those two states.Information from the total 47 state law enforcement agencies isused in Chapter I because the chapter discusses the overalldomestic marijuana problem in the United States. However, Schapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 discuss DEA's 1983 Domestic MarijuanaEradication/Suppression Program, and we limited our analysis ofthe questionnaires to the 37 respondents who participated inDEA's 1983 program.
We discussed the domestic marijuana problem and control Sefforts with representatives of the National Governors' Associa-tion (NGA), the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA),and the State Drug Enforcement Alliance (SDEA). Additionally,we attended a roundtable discussion on the use of the militaryin the control of illegal drugs co-sponsored by the NGA, theDepartment of Justice, the NCJA, the National Guard Association, _ 0and the SDEA.
9
5
We also reviewed information published by the NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) concerning the health consequen-ces of marijuana use, and we discussed this topic with a memberof the National Advisory Council of NIDA.
We supplemented the work described above with informationobtained on another GAO evaluation addressing marijuana cultiva-tion on national forest and other federal lands.
The Subcommittee requested that, because of time con-straints, we not obtain agency comments on this report. We did,however, discuss the report's content with agency officials, andtheir comments are incorporated where appropriate. Our reviewwas performed in accordance with generally accepted governmentauditing standards.
10
&
)
101
CHAPTER 2
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS HELPING
STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES COMBAT 0
THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
In an attempt to curtail the increasing cultivation ofmarijuana in the United States, DEA has increased its assistanceto state and local law enforcement agencies. In 1983, 40 statesparticipated in DEA's Domestic Marijuana Eradication/SuppressionProgram. As part of its program, DEA allocated to the states atotal of $1.75 million to help defray expenses of marijuanaeradication activities. DEA also provided some training, equip-ment, and a small number of personnel. Such support is consis-tent with the overall federal drug strategy which encouragesstate and local agencies to control domestic marijuana.
Federal assistance is not limited to DEA. For example, theU.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)cooperate with local law enforcement in certain states to detectand eradicate marijuana that is grown on federal lands. Other 6agencies, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearmsand the FBI also provided some help.
FEDERAL STRATEGY FOR COMBATTINGDOMESTIC MARIJUANA
The Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (Public Law92-255) established a Strategy Council on Drug Abuse to developa federal strategy for drug abuse prevention and drug traffick-ing control by the federal government. The council consists ofrepresentatives from the White House Drug Abuse Policy Office;the Departments of Justice, State, Defense, and Treasury; andeight other departments and independent agencies.
The strategy provides for federal initiatives encouragingstate and local agencies to eradicate marijuana cultivated inthe United States. The 1982 strategy1 emphasizes that a keyelement of domestic drug law enforcement
"is public recognition of the needs to stop the produc-tion of illegal drugs within the United States and toexpand the ongoing drug eradication efforts throughout
1The most recent strategy statement, Federal Strategy forPrevention of Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking, was published in1982.
-0
11
• -- - - - .- - - " 'u.. . - . . . - - - - - - : - - - - - 7 -
F. S
the United States . . . cultivation of cannabis 2
requires the attention of all levels of government,with emphasis on initiatives by state and local lawenforcement activities."
DEA HAS INCREASED ITS ASSISTANCETO THE STATES FOR MARIJUANAPLANT ERADICATION7SUPPRESSION
DEA, the principal federal agency for drug law enforcement,has assisted state and local law enforcement agencies since1979, when it helped agencies in California and Hawaii. In1981, DEA expanded its support to include Oregon, Florida,Georgia, Missouri, and Kentucky. During that year, a DEA surveydisclosed that marijuana was being commercially cultivated in atleast 25 states. DEA also found that in 1981 greater amounts ofhigh-grade marijuana were being produced, commanding higherprices and thereby providing a greater incentive to growers. Tocounter this threat, in 1982, DEA established its Domestic Mari-juana Eradication/Suppression Program which initially included25 states. On the basis of further analysis of the problem in1982, DEA expanded the program to 40 states in 1983.
DEA allocated $2.4 million from its operating budget ($255million in fiscal year 1983) for the 1983 Domestic MarijuanaEradication/Suppression Program. About $1.75 million of thiswas given directly to state and local law enforcement agenciesfor eradicating marijuana plants and for suppression activitiesincluding the arrest and prosecution of offenders and seizure oftheir assets.
The remaining allocated funds were used by DEA for: train-ing schools attended by state and local officers (as well assome Forest Service and BLM agents); aircraft surveillance tohelp locate marijuana plots; high-altitude photography in partsof California and Oregon; and other DEA headquarters and fieldoffice activities, such as informing the public about the threatof marijuana cultivation, helping states develop programs, coor-dinating with other federal agencies, assisting with certaininvestigations, and developing methods for using herbicides toeradicate plants. A breakdown of the $2.4 million is providedin the following table.
2Cannabis is a broad leaf weed from which marijuana, thefinished dry drug substance, can be produced. Both terms,cannabis and marijuana, are used interchangeably in thisreport.
12
DEA Funds AllocatedDomestic Marijuana Eradication/Suppression Program
1983
Funds to states $1,750,270Training schools 83,500DEA airwing 100,000High-altitude photographya 150,000Headquarters and field officeoperating funds 261,130
Purchase of evidence/purchaseof information 55,100
Total $2,400,000
aDEA's Office of Science and Technology contributed an addi-tional $50,000 to this project.
The extent of DEA's assistance to each state to combatdomestic marijuana varies. While all states participating inDEA's program reportedly have marijuana being grown for profit,some states have a greater problem than others. DEA's plan is 0to provide differing levels of assistance, depending upon theperceived volume of cultivation, sufficient to support anaggressive search program in each state. The amount of fundsthat DEA gave to each of the 40 participating states during 1983is shown in appendix II.
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE ALSO HELPING
In addition to DEA, other federal agencies assist state andlocal marijuana eradication efforts. Because some marijuana iscultivated on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and BLM,they contribute money, equipment for aerial surveillance, and in Scertain instances manpower to support state and local domesticmarijuana control efforts. For example, in 1983, the ForestService provided about $1.1 million and BLM provided an esti-mated $180,000 in cooperative law enforcement funds to combatmarijuana cultivation. In addition, both agencies contributedto research on advanced methods for detecting marijuana from the 0air.
State and local law enforcement agencies in certain loca-tions have received some assistance from other federal agenciesas well. Various state law enforcement officials reported thatin 1983 their states' domestic marijuana control efforts were Sassisted to some extent by the FBI; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobaccoand Firearms; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Customs; U.S. CoastGuard; and DOD. The types of assistance varied by state and by
13
. . . . . . . . . . .nl n .. . . . . . . . . . II . . . . . . l I . . . . . . . .
the federal agency involved but included investigation, intelli-gence, eradication manpower, and aerial support. With theexception of DOD, the total amount of assistance from eachagency cannot be readily determined. --
A MODEL STATE PROGRAM
The eradication and suppression efforts in California dur-ing 1983 are considered by DEA to be an example of the type ofcoordination DEA is encouraging. To provide a vehicle forfocusing multi-agency resources on domestic marijuana, a joint .0county, state, and federal task force referred to as theCampaign Against Marijuana Planting (CAMP) was established.Twenty-eight agencies participated, including agencies notnormally involved in such activities (e.g., California Office ofEmergency Services, California Department of Forestry, and theNational Guard). This coordination of effort is the reason DEAhas labeled CAMP a model program.
The principal participating agencies paid for much ofCAMP's costs. However, some needed resources were neitheravailable from these agencies nor eligible for procurement withthe limited federal funds available. The California Office of 0Emergency Services located and acquired these resourcea fromwithin the state government.
CAMP targeted high density cultivation areas in 14 coun-ties. The counties were divided into four regions, each havinga regional strike team responsible for carrying out eradication
raids. Potential raid targets were identified through aerialobservation and other means, and specific sites were selectedfor the raids. Weekly operations plans were then developed foreach region. After the CAMP steering committee approved theweekly plans, the strike teams conducted the eradication raidsand reported the results to CAMP headquarters. During the 10- 9week operation, teams raided 524 sites resulting in the destruc-tion of 64,579 plants. The following sequence of photographswas taken during a CAMP operation in Northern California.
140
p 9
14
LP
0
!0
2S
Source: GAO
In September 1983, GAO observed a marijuana raid in Yuba County, California. The raidwas part of California's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (CAM P)-a joint county, state,and federal task force which targeted high density cultivation areas in Northern California.The raid resulted in the seizure of approximately 5,000 marijuana plants, cultivated in fourdifferent plats and scattered throughout a forest area.
15
S
0nl IIII
I4Z
j "
S C GAOIAn example of a stem full of buds from one of the seized marijuana plants. A well cultivatedmarijuana plant can produce numerous buds which are the most valuable and potent part ofthe plant.
N4, -fd
*Ak.
.
Raid team members included law enforcement officers from Sheriff's Offices in Yuba and* Butte Counties, the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, U.S. Forest Service, and
Bureau of Land Management
16
,0 ilI II II II I I I..
0 A-4
lip
444
Source: GAOEradication raids are labor intensive and require the efforts of many peopleto cut, remove, and destroy the marijuana plants.
LW , 17
Source GAOThe seized plants are piled on a net and readied for transport by helicopter.
17
AS
Source: GAO
A law enforcement off icer records the number of marijuana plants seized. Accurate eradica-tion statistics help improve estimates of marijuana production.
Source: GAOA UH-1 (Huey) helicopter supplied and crewed by the National Guard provided airtranspor-tation for the strike team and removed the seized marijuana from the forest area. The
-- National Guard furnished such assistance to CAMP after the governor determined thatemergency measures were necessary.
-1 8 . . . _ . . . . . . 7 _
r-O-
0
0
Source: GAOTwo nets loaded with marijuana are hooked to a steel cable suspended from the helicopter,and airlifted to the landing zone. Air support is sometimes needed to transport seized •cultivation equipment (e.g.; irrigation pipes, pumps, and generators) and to insert andextract raid teams.
19
idi
:; L16...)0
RIMS
0g
The air-lifted marijuana is dropped at the landing zone. loaded onto a truck, and then• transported to an incinerator for destruction.
20
CHAPTER 3
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS HAVE DISRUPTED
CULTIVATION METHODS AND STATES
CLAIM MORE RESOURCES NEEDED
Marijuana cultivation in the United States continues toincrease. The major impact of federal, state, and local eradi-cation and suppression efforts has been to cause marijuana grow- 0ers to become more cautious and change their cultivation methodsto make their plants harder to detect by law enforcement offi-cials. Growers are shifting their operations indoors; breakingup outdoor crops into smaller plots; and using other techniques,such as camouflage nets to conceal their outdoor crops. Manylaw enforcement officials said they believe that such practiceswill be more prevalent in the future, and they expect domesticmarijuana cultivation to increase during 1984 and 1985.
In responding to our questionnaire, state law enforcementagencies involved in DEA's domestic marijuana program identifieda variety of resources needed to increase the impact of their Seradication and suppression efforts, both indoors and outdoors.Most state agencies said their efforts will decrease withoutcontinued federal funding.
IMPACT OF ERADICATION ANDSUPPRESSION PROGRAM S
In our questionnaire sent to state law enforcement agenciesin October 1983, we asked each agency to describe the impact oftheir state's efforts against domestic marijuana. Agenciesrepresenting 36 of the 40 states in DEA's 1983 programresponded.1 One state, Ohio, said it had reduced the amount ofmarijuana being cultivated. Another state said its efforts hadno effect on cultivation, and eight states (including Californiawith its model program) could not determine whether there was animpact in terms of reduced marijuana cultivation. Twenty-sixother states reported that their efforts resulted in seizingplants, making arrests, and letting growers know that action is Sbeing taken. However, the most frequent impact cited (13 of the26 states) was that enforcement efforts have caused marijuana
IBecause chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 discuss and evaluate DEA'snational program, questionnaire analysis in the chapters islimited to states that participated in DEA's 1983 DomesticMarijuana Eradication/Suppression Program. Aggregate responsesfor all 47 responding states are contained in appendix III.
2
21
. . . . . . . . .. . .. . ... . . . ... . . . .... ... ... ... . ..
growers to alter their cultivation methods. Many growers aretrying to avoid detection by taking evasive actions, such ascultivating smaller and scattered plots, spacing plants amongother vegetation, using camouflage, and moving indoors.
Using greenhouses or buildings to cultivate marijuanaindoors is becoming increasingly popular. A 1982 narcoticsassessment by the Western States Information Network (WSIN)2 ofmarijuana cultivation in California, Oregon, Hawaii, andWashington noted this trend. WSIN found that enforcementefforts have prompted cultivators to start indoor operations ineach of those states, and that many of these growers are usingsophisticated lighting and irrigation systems (such as highintensity lamps and hydroponics). 3
The seizure of an indoor hydroponic growing operation inCleveland, Ohio, illustrates the degree of sophistication thatcan be achieved. This hydroponic laboratory was housed on threefloors of a commercial building and had a constant flowingnutrient system piped throughout from a 600-gallon tank. Onefloor, equipped with flourescent lighting, was used as a starterarea. The other two floors were for maturing plants and con-tained about 50 high-intensity lights. Drug agents seized over400 marijuana plants, dried marijuana from drying rooms, severaltrash bags of manicured marijuana, and $50,000 worth of equip-ment at the facility. According to DEA, individuals who areexperts in such hydroponic plant growing are reportedly beingrecruited as consultants by other marijuana growers unfamiliarwith hydroponic cultivation methods.
Responses to our questionnaire by states in DEA's programprovide an indication of the extent that indoor cultivation hasincreased. Twenty-seven (73 percent) of the 37 state lawenforcement agencies responding said the number of marijuanaplants grown in greenhouses had increased during the past 3years, and 22 (60 percent) said the number of plants cultivatedindoors, excluding greenhouses, had increased during that sameperiod. None of the agencies cited a decrease.
2WSIN is one of seven Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS)multistate projects funded by the Congress. It is designed toprovide criminal information exchange, intelligence analysis,and other related operational support services to state andlocal law enforcement agencies in California, Oregon, Hawaii,Washington, and Alaska.
3Hydroponics is the cultivation of plants by placing the roots inliquid nutrient solutions rather than in soil.
22
We also asked the state law enforcement agencies to indi-cate in the questionnaire how much increase or decrease in mari-juana cultivation, indoors and otherwise, they expect in theirstates during 1984 and 1985. The table below shows how theagencies responded.
Expectations for Marijuana Cultivationin 1984 and 1985
Neitherincrease
Great nor GreatActivity increase Increase decrease Decrease decrease
(percent)aCultivation ofmarijuana (excludingsinsemilla) 30 51 11 8 0
Cultivation ofsinsemilla 51 38 8 3 0
Cultivation of marijuanaplants in greenhouses 43 54 3 0 0 0
Cultivation of marijuanaplants indoors (exclud-ing greenhouses) 32 46 22 0 0
apercentage of the 37 responding agencies participating in DEA'sDomestic Marijuana Program. For percentages applicable to allresponding agencies, see appendix III, p. 52.
As can be seen in the table above, most of the states expect thecultivation of domestic marijuana to continue to increase andmore of it to be grown indoors in greenhouses and buildings.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES NEEDEDBY THE STATES
State law enforcement agencies state that a variety ofadditional resources are needed to achieve a greater impact onthe domestic marijuana problem. Some states plan to allocatemore resources but overall, the state agencies expect theplanned increases to fall short of what is needed.
The state agencies indicated in our questionnaire the typesof resources needed in their states. They also indicated •whether their states plan to commit more of these resources in1984 and 1985. The following table compares the number ofresponding state agencies in DEA's 1983 program that cited a
23
-
need for more resources with the number that said increases areplanned.
4
Resources Needed in 1984 and 1985 by Statesin DEA's Domestic Marijuana Programa 0
ResourceMore resources More resources commitment
needed planned unknown
(Number of states)
Eradication manpower 30 17 2Fixed-wing aircraft 32 16 3Troop-lift helicopters 23 7 11Other types of helicopters 34 16 6Off-road vehicles 34 15 4Sophisticated equipment tolocate marijuana plots 33 15 7
Equipment for eradicatingplants 32 19 6
Investigative assistance 27 26 0Intelligence collectionand analysis assistance 36 29 0 0
Training 31 22 2
aThirty-seven of the state agencies participating in DEA's 1983program responded to our questionnaire. Not all of the 37respondents answered every question. For responz-s from allresponding agencies, see appendix III, pp. 66 and 67.
For each of the resources listed above, more statesexpressed a need than said an increase was planned. The resour-ces most often identified as being needed were intelligenceactivities, helicopters, and off-road vehicles. Over half ofthe states citing a need for these three resources said their Dlevel of need was either critical or great. Most of the statesplan to increase resources in the intelligence area. None ofthe states plan to decrease their level of commitment.
In response to another question, most states also indicateda continued need for federal funding to help support their Sefforts. Thirty of the 37 responding state law enforcementagencies said activities directed toward domestic marijuana intheir states would decrease to some extent if federal fundingand resources were eliminated. Three of these state agencies
p
4Our questionnaire allowed the respondents to indicate the extentof their needs and of any planned increases or decreases inresources.
24
. .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . ... . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . .
said eradication/suppression activities would not take place atall, 14 said there would be a very great decrease, and another 4said activities would greatly decrease. Two-thirds of thoseciting a large reduction in eradication efforts without federalsupport also said that marijuana cultivation was a very majorproblem in their states.
CONCLUSIONS
The states that participated in DEA's 1983 domestic mari-juana program reported little overall progress in reducing mari-juana cultivation. According to the states, the effect of lawenforcement efforts has been primarily to cause growers to shifttheir operations indoors or take other actions so outdoor cropswill not easily be detected. Marijuana cultivation is expectedto continue to increase in most of the states. State lawenforcement agencies said a variety of additional resources areneeded to increase their eradication and suppression efforts,both indoors and outdoors.
25
_0
S
S
I@
CHAPTER 4
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND NATIONAL
GUARD RESOURCES CAN BE USED IN THE
DOMESTIC MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The National Guard and the Department of Defense (DOD) canlegally provide certain resources, particularly air support, 0
needed by many state and local agencies in their efforts toeradicate domestic marijuana being grown outdoors. Their sup-port to agencies in DEA's 1983 program, however, was minimal.
While in a federally funded training status, National Guardunits may provide direct helicopter support (transporting law S
enforcement personnel and marijuana plants) to law enforcementagencies for marijuana eradication raids. However, Guard unitslimited their assistance in this status to the spotting of mari-juana plants when on aircraft training missions. A reason forthe limited assistance may have been that Guard headquartersguidelines did not clearly state that units may provide directassistance to civilian drug enforcement agencies while train-ing. Some local Guard officials informed civilian agencies thatNational Guard guidelines prohibit such assistance.
Two state drug enforcement agencies received DOD assistancein support of domestic marijuana eradication activities. Manystate law enforcement agencies involved in marijuana eradicationtold us that they either were not aware that DOD assistance mayhave been available or lacked information on how to request it.
NATIONAL GUARD AND DOD RESOURCES ARENEEDED BY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
In response to our questionnaire, most state agencies citeda need for helicopters, airplanes, off-road vehicles, and otherequipment to increase the impact of their efforts. Marijuanacultivators often plant their crops in remote areas, making themdifficult to spot and eradicate. Ninety-two percent of the 37responding agencies in DEA's program said information on mari-juana plots sighted by Guard and DOD personnel while on routinemilitary operations would be of great or very great value totheir efforts. Seventy-eight percent of the agencies also saidthat allowing civilian law enforcement officers on board mili-tary training flights for the purpose of detecting marijuana Cplots would be valuable.
According to DEA, providing troop-lift helicopters withcrews for marijuana eradication raids is the single greatest
26
i
contribution the Guard can make to the domestic marijuana pro-gram. This type of assistance is beneficial because troop-lifthelicopters can insert raid teams in remote areas where mari-juana is often grown and can remove both the teams and the con-fiscated plants from the raid sites.
DOD ASSISTANCE MAYBE AVAILABLE
The Congress recently has encouraged DOD to provide someassistance to civilian law enforcement authorities. While thePosse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) generally prohibits federalmilitary participation in civilian law enforcement activities,legislation enactedl on December 1, 1981, provides exceptionsto this prohibition. The 1981 legislation was prompted by con-cern over the massive smuggling of both drugs and illegal immi-grants into the United States and the potential of the PosseComitatus Act to restrict DOD assistance. As was noted in theDecember 16, 1981, Congressional Record:
"Clearly in these times of fiscal restraint, itis imperative that all possible resources be utilizedto combat narcotics trafficking and all relevant agen-cies cooperate. Perhaps the greatest untappedresource is the Department of Defense."
The legislation authorizes certain specific forms of mili-tary cooperation with civilian law enforcement officials. Forexample, DOD may furnish information collected during the normalcourse of military operations .hat may pertain to a violation of pfederal or state law, lend equipment and facilities for lawenforcement purposes, train civilian law enforcement officers inthe operation and maintenance of loaned military equipment, andprovide expert advice. The legislation prohibits direct parti-cipation by DOD personnel in searches, seizures, and arrests,unless otherwise authorized by law, and prohibits providingassistance if it will adversely affect military preparedness.The legislation also provides that DOD may require reimbursementas a condition for its assistance.
Certain types of authorized DOD assistance would be helpfulto domestic marijuana eradication efforts. For example, DOD mayprovide state and local agencies with information on marijuanaplots sighted during DOD training flights. It may loan equip-ment such as helicopters and off-road vehicles (requiring reim-bursement for fuel, parts, and maintenance costs in some
1Public Law No. 97-86, 95 Stat. 1099, 1114-1116 (1981) (10U.S.C. 371-378).
27
instances), and can provide base facilities for training andstorage. In addition, DOD personnel may train civilian authori-ties to operate DOD loaned equipment.
In accordance with the 1981 legislation, DOD publishedguidelines on March 22, 1982, regarding DOD cooperation withcivilian law enforcement officials. These guidelines cited theauthorized DOD assistance which may be provided to civilian lawenforcement as cited on p. 27.
Law enforcement agencies have not capitalized on DOD assis-tance for marijuana eradication. Two states received DOD's helpduring 1983:
--One state was loaned a National Guard helicopter at thedirection of DOD. The helicopter was used to transportofficers quickly into an area difficult to reach on theground. According to the state law enforcement agency,this assistance resulted in the eradication of over10,000 marijuana plants and the arrest of the cultiva-tors. The agency said that more of this support isneeded.
--Working through a U.S. attorney, another state requestedand received a loan of military compasses and nightvision goggles for help with domestic marijuana investi-gations. Correspondence from a local Air Force officerin the U.S. attorney's district indicated that identify-ing marijuana plants during photography training flightsand providing the information to civilian drug enforce-ment agencies are excellent ways to utilize data that isreadily available.
Most state law enforcement agencies lacked adequate infor-mation about DOD assistance. In responding to our question-naire, 11 of 37 agencies (30 percent) in DEA's program said theyknew such assistance was available and how to obtain it.Twenty-six (70 percent) either did not know DOD assistance wasavailable or were aware that it was available but did not knowhow to obtain it. When asked whether their states expect torequest DOD support during 1984 and 1985, many of the agenciesindicated a need for more information on the types of assistancethat DOD can provide and/or the procedures for making a request.
LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTINGNATIONAL GUARD ASSISTANCE WHILEIN TRAINING STATUS
While the defense of the nation is the primary mission ofthe National Guard, it has the additional mission of assistingcivil authorities in the preservation of life, the protection of
28
property, and maintenance of order. The National Guard unlessin federal service is not restricted by the Posse Comitatus actfrom assisting states in their marijuana eradication efforts.However, when the Guard is training other legal restrictionsexist. Although the National Guard has indicated a willingness Sto support drug enforcement and Guard units provided some assis-tance to states in 1983, some state Guard units are not sure ofthe extent of assistance the National Guard may provide while infederally funded training status.
Applicability of Posse Comitatus 0
restrictions to the National Guard
The National Guard generally is not subject to the restric-tions contained in the Posse Comitatus Act. This is because theAct only applies to the armed forces of the United States, andthe National Guard generally is not treated as part of the armedforces unless called into federal service.
Congress has the Constitutional authority to provide for"calling forth the militia2 to execute the laws" of the UnitedStates. Congress has exercised that authority by passing lawsauthorizing the President to call the militia of any state intofederal service under certain conditions. Existing laws providethat when members of the National Guard are called into activefederal service, they are subject to laws and regulationsgoverning the armed forces (see e.g., 10 U.S.C. 3499 governingthe Army National Guard). Therefore, a federalized Guard wouldappear to be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Guard also may be called into active service by aGovernor in response to an emergency declared in accordance withstate law. When this occurs, the Guard is considered part ofthe state militia and subject to state laws. Therefore, itwould not be subject to restrictions contained in the PosseComitatus Act and other federal statutes which apply only to thearmed forces of the United States. Activities conducted whilein state active duty status must be funded by the state and mayinclude search, seizure, and transport of confiscated contra-band. In an emergency declared by the Governor, National Guardequipment may be used.3 S
2The terms National Guard and militia often are interchange-able. For example, 32 U.S.C. 101 (4) and (6) defines theNational Guard as part of the organized militia of the states.
3National Guard equipment is owned by DOD.
29
0
The National Guard, in addition to being called into fede-ral or state service, may be encamped for combat readinesstraining purposes (Title 32, U.S. Code). Although the FederalGovernment provides funds and supplies to the Guard for train-ing, this does not necessarily determine its status when intraining for purposes of the Posse Comitatus Act. The NationalGuard is defined in 32 U.S.C. 101 as that part of the statemilitia which is financed at federal expense. Also, members ofthe National Guard on unit training generally have been regardedby the courts as part of the state militia and not in UnitedStates service. Since the Posse Comitatus Act applies only tothe armed forces, to the extent that the Guard generally is notconsidered part of the armed forces when in title 32 training,Posse Comitatus restrictions appear not to apply. This comportswith Army regulations which provide that restrictions on mili-tary participation in civilian law enforcement do not apply tomembers of the Army National Guard when not in federal service.
Effect of federal funding on the extentof National Guard assistance
The funding of the National Guard, while in title 32 train-ing status, by federal appropriations acts provides a direct andcertain legal limitation on the Guard participating in civilianlaw enforcement activities. Federal funds provided to the Guardfor training may only be used for activities related to the pur-poses for which the appropriation was made. Consequently,assistance in marijuana control efforts provided by the NationalGuard while in training status must be related to a trainingpurpose. The National Guard Bureau4 has recognized this limi-tation in a June 1983 letter providing drug enforcement guide-lines to the state Adjutants General5 by limiting assistance tothat "incidental and compatible with scheduled training."
4The National Guard Bureau is a joint agency of the Depart-ments of Army and Air Force and participates with both Depart-ments in developing and coordinating all programs affectingGuard units. The Bureau administers programs, and issuesregulations for the training and development of the Army andAir Force Guards.
5A state Adjutant General, appointed by the governor in moststates, is the state's senior officer over both Army andAirForce National Guard units, and is in the position of eitherNational Guard Commander or Chief of Staff to the Governor,depending on state law.
30
0 0
National Guard assistance provided
Under the limitations described above, it appears thatthere are a range of marijuana control activities which are com-patible with training requirements. Guard officials have statedthat certain eradication tasks are compatible with certain Guardtraining requirements. According to a National Guard headquar-ters aviation unit operations specialist, 10 of the 11 generaltraining task categories that the Guard requires of helicoptercrews are compatible with direct marijuana eradication support.These tasks include flight planning, aircraft hovering, and tac- etical and special mission tasks such as aerial observation,evasive maneuvers, and terrain flight takeoffs and approaches.
Also, National Guard officials in California and Hawaii,where Guard units provided direct support to marijuana eradica-tion efforts, told us that such assistance provides good train- •ing for helicopter crews. According to Hawaii's Guard, the typeof flying performed in support of the program constitutes real-istic training for helicopter crews, and the tasks performedwere closer to combat duty than any other type of training per-formed. The assistance in California and Hawaii was providedunder a state of emergency after their governors declared thatillegal drug operations represented a threat to the statepopulace requiring emergency measures. Therefore, while thetraining limitations do not apply, the testimony of Guard offi-cials in these states is useful in explaining the degree towhich eradication tasks resemble training requirements.
During 1983, all Guard support while in federal trainingstatus was limited to information gathering and sharing.Responses to our questionnaire disclosed that during 1983 theGuard assisted 14 states in their domestic marijuana controlefforts. Support to 10 of the 14 states was in the form ofinformation on the location of suspected marijuana fields *detected during routine training flights. (As of December 1983,16 state law enforcement agencies had entered into agreementswith Guard units for this type of assistance. Seventeen addi-tional state agencies were either engaged in discussions ordeveloping agreements for this assistance.)
Guard assistance to three of the other states included theloan of night vision goggles, a fuel truck, and a Guard facil-ity, as well as training in booby trap detection. Troop-lifthelicopters with crews were provided for some marijuana eradica-tion raids in California after the governor activated the Guardunit by declaring that California's marijuana production consti-tuted a state of emergency. Such direct assistance was also
31
0 0
provided in Hawaii where the Governor also declared anemergency.6 Twenty helicopter support missions in Californiacontributed to the eradication of 218,576 pounds of marijuanaand 12 arrests, and nine missions in Hawaii helped with theeradication of 140,710 marijuana plants.
Confusion exists concerningtype of direct assistanceauthorized by guidelines
Some confusion exists among Guard units regarding the --extent that the Guard may support civilian law enforcement andunder what circumstances assistance may be provided. Accordingto the National Guard Bureau June 1983 drug enforcement sup-port guidelines, support to the marijuana program while intraining status is "limited primarily to" providing informationon the location of marijuana fields detected during routinetraining flights. Headquarters officials said guidelines permitunits to provide direct assistance (transporting law enforcementpersonnel and confiscated contraband) to law enforcement agen-cies during training under certain circumstances including:
--Operations must be compatible with the unit's mission/training tasks and must not interfere with scheduledtraining, although modification of preplanned routes andlocations is allowable.
--The National Guard must obtain DOD's approval to trans-port civilian law enforcement officers in aircraft.
--Guard units cannot exceed the flying hours allocated foraircraft.
Most of the conditions are not cited in the drug enforce-ment guidelines. The state units, according to these officials,should have already been aware of these conditions because theyhad been published in general guidelines for providing directassistance in the law enforcement areas.
6Hawaii is not included in the 14 states referred to earlierwhich received Guard assistance. We excluded Hawaii's ques-tionnaire responses from our statistical analysis because theagency that completed it was not able to answer for the entirestate.
32
However, at three of the four state Guard units we con-tacted, officials told us that their interpretation of drugenforcement guidelines is that the only assistance they may pro-vide while training is surveillance information gathered onroutine training flights. The other Guard unit said that itsmission was not compatible with the domestic marijuana opera-tions.
In addition, followup contact with 17 state agencies on thebasis of their questionnaire responses indicating some type ofdifficulty regarding Guard assistance revealed that other stateGuard units interpreted headquarters' guidelines as prohibitingdirect assistance. According to seven state agencies, they metwith state Guard units during 1983 to discuss direct helicoptersupport and were informed by Guard officials that, on the basisof headquarters' guidelines, the only assistance the units werecertain they could provide in support of the marijuana programwhile training was information gathering. Two of the agencyofficials said the local Guard units were willing to providedirect assistance but indicated that because the units had noclear-cut directives from headquarters, they were uncertain asto whether they could provide it. The units, according toagency officials, did not want to chance giving a type of assis-tance not in keeping with National Guard policy.
Two other state agencies said they never met with Guardofficials because it was common knowledge that the Guard couldnot be used for law enforcement purposes unless the governordeclared a state of emergency. Another state official reportedthat Guard assistance is unlikely without direct orders fromDOD. Responses from the other seven state agencies were eithertoo much "red tape" involved in requesting Guard assistance orthat earlier difficulties had been resolved.
GREATER DEA SUPPORT AND COORDINATIONARE NEEDED TO HELP STATES OBTAINMILITARY ASSISTANCE
DEA is the lead federal agency for the national DomesticMarijuana Eradication/Suppression Program. DEA's role in theprogram is one of leadership, coordination, and support to stateand local authorities in their eradication efforts.
In exercising leadership, DEA provides program guidance tostates to assist them with their individual domestic marijuanaprograms. DEA field coordinators are responsible for helpingthe states develop annual operations plans which request DEAfunding and other resources. DEA also helps by coordinatingwith other federal agencies on the assistance they can providestate programs. As noted earlier, however, many state agencies
33 - _
_ 0
.
in DEA's program did not know how to obtain military assistance,or were not even aware that such assistance was available.
According to DEA headquarters officials, the field coordi-nators were unable to provide states with much information onDOD assistance in 1983. DEA said it was not certain of the type Sand extent of DOD assistance available and the proceduresinvolved in requesting assistance. Although DEA and DOD hadcoordinated to some extent, DEA explained that it was still inthe learning stage regarding what DOD could provide law enforce-ment agencies under Posse Comitatus and how to obtain the assis- tance DOD could supply.
During our evaluation, DEA made progress in this area.DEA updated its Domestic Marijuana Coordinator's Handbook duringDecember 1983 to include a section on the types of DOD and Guardresources which may be available to assist the domestic mari-juana program. The handbook is distributed to DEA field agentsassigned coordination responsibilities for the domestic mari-juana program.
CONCLUSIONS
0 The National Guard and DOD can help meet some of thestates' needs for resources in their domestic eradicationefforts. To date, however, such assistance has been minimal.Although DEA is responsible for providing guidance to statedomestic marijuana programs concerning the availability of fede-ral assistance, many state law enforcement agencies were notaware that military assistance was available or did not know how 0to request it. The 1983 revisions to DEA's Marijuana Coordina-tor's Handbook should help correct this problem.
In addition, National Guard Bureau guidelines to stateGuard units regarding support to civilian drug enforcementactivities caused some confusion, potentially limiting theextent of support provided during federally funded Guard train-ing missions. The guidelines should make it clear that unitswhile training, on a case-by-case basis, may provide neededtroop-lift helicopters with crews to transport law enforcementofficers and airlift marijuana plants--provided the assistanceis consistent with National Guard training requirements.
On March 27, 1984, we met with the Chief, National GuardBureau to present our review results and our suggestion that theNational Guard Bureau amend its drug enforcement support
34
guidelines to specify the types of direct assistance that Guardunits in training are authorized to provide law enforcementauthorities, and the conditions under which this type of assis-tance may be provided.
The Chief, National Guard Bureau adopted our suggestion.On April 25, 1984, the National Guard Bureau issued, to allstate Guard units, a notice of Clarification of Guidance forSupport to Drug/Law Enforcement. The clarification cites thetypes of direct assistance that Guard units in training mayprovide and the conditions under which they may be provided.
31
6
35 _
CHAPTER 5
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES PLAN TO
INCREASE EMPHASIS ON INTELLIGENCE
One of the greatest needs identified by state law enforce-ment agencies for marijuana reduction efforts is intelligencecollection and analysis. DEA's national program has emphasizedthe eradication of plants, and little intelligence has beengathered beyond detecting outdoor marijuana plots. Not much isknown about the number of indoor growing operations, the extentto which large-scale criminal organizations are involved in cul-tivation and distribution, and the amount of marijuana that isdistributed outside the area where it is grown. Knowledge ofsuch activities is needed, however, because state law enforce-ment agencies expect greater indoor cultivation and more large-scale operations in the future. Greater intelligence collectionand analysis should help law enforcement agencies direct theirlimited resources to those cultivation and distribution opera-tions where enforcement efforts can make the greatest impact.Greater emphasis on intelligence is planned by many state lawenforcement agencies.
INTELLIGENCE IS IMPORTANT TO DRUGLAW ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVENESS
The collection of adequate, timely, and reliable intelli-gence concerning drug trafficking operations contributes to thesuccess of drug law enforcement. Accurate and up-to-date infor-mation enhances law enforcement's ability to assess the vulnera-bilities of criminal organizations, forecast new developments inthe illegal drug trade, evaluate the impact of previous lawenforcement activities, and establish policies and strategiesfor enforcement actions. Analysis of intelligence is importantto law enforcement agencies' decisionmaking process and providesa basis for allocating resources to specific drug enforcementactivities.
Under Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, DEAwas tasked with developing and maintaining a nationwide drugintelligence system in cooperation with federal, state, andlocal officials. DEA is responsible for having an intelligenceprogram for a nationally directed attack on drug abuse at alllevels. This involves coordinating widely dispersed intelli-gence resources and facilitating the exchange of drug intelli-gence among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
In DEA's 1983 Domestic Marijuana Eradication/SuppressionProgram, participating state and local law enforcement agencies
36
agreed through letters of agreement with DEA to gather andreport intelligence relating to the illicit cultivation, posses-sion, and distribution of domestic marijuana. DEA's field pro-gram coordinators were instructed that in addition to collectingstatistics on the amount of marijuana eradicated, state programsshould develop operational intelligence regarding cultivators,traffickers, and distribution systems for their own law enforce-ment use. Operations plans developed by each participatingstate were to include a description of the intelligence systemthat existed or was being prepared to develop this requiredintelligence.
INTELLIGENCE IS A SMALL PORTIONOF THE STATES' EFFORTS
In response to the questionnaire, state agencies reportedthat domestic marijuana control activities resulted in a signi- Sficant amount of effort (all resources) devoted to eradicatingmarijuana crops. Less effort was spent collecting and analyzingintelligence about domestic marijuana cultivation and distribu-tion operations. The table below shows the average percent ofeffort spent on eradication and other domestic marijuana controlactivities by state and local agencies in 36 states that parti- Scipated in DEA'S 1983 program.
States' Domestic MarijuanaEradication/Suppression Efforts
PercentageActivities of effortsa
Eradication 47Investigation 34Intelligence collection and analysis 13Public awareness 6Other (less than 1 percent)
aThese percentages represent the mean averages and do not add upto 100 percent because of rounding.
As the table points out, eradication made up an average of47 percent of the states' efforts compared to 13 percent for 0intelligence activities. Further analysis shows that aboutone-half of these states devoted at least 50 percent of theirefr-rts to eradication, while three-fourths of the statesde' ed 15 percent or less of their efforts to collecting andanalyzing intelligence.
State and local agencies were the most active agenciesinvolved in gathering information about marijuana cultivatorsand distributors. On the basis of questionnaire responses, DEA
37
and the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS)l projectswere involved in intelligence activities to a lesser extent.During our visits to four of the seven RISS projects, we foundthat three were gathering and compiling information from memberagencies on domestic marijuana. Of those three, the WesternStates Information Network was the most active because it per-formed these intelligence functions on a routine basis.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVELIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF DOMESTICMARIJUANA OPERATIONS
Given the emphasis on eradicating plants, law enforcementagencies do not have a great amount of information about thedomestic marijuana industry, particularly about the extent ofindoor cultivation, the involvement of large criminal organiza-tions, and the patterns of distribution. We asked the stateagencies to indicate in our questionnaire the extent of know-ledge that exists regarding various aspects of domestic mari-juana cultivation and distribution in their states. The follow-ing chart summarizes the responses.
P- ICongress funds seven multistate RISS projects which aredesigned to provide criminal information exchange and otherrelated support services to member state and local lawenforcement agencies in the 50 states.
38
0-
Extent of Knowledge in Statesa
Great or Littlevery great Moderate or no
Area knowledge knowledge knowledge(percent) (percent) (percent)
Extent of cultivationindoors 0 46 . 54
Extent of involvementin cultivation by large-scale criminalorganizations 3 46 51
Extent of involvementin distribution bylarge-scale criminalorganizations 5 51 43
Distribution patterns 6 47 47
Amount of domesticmarijuana cultivated 24 54 22
Types of domesticmarijuana cultivated 27 54 19
aThirty-seven of the state agencies in DEA's program responded,except for "distribution patterns" in which 36 agenciesresponded. Some percentages do not add to 100 percent becauseof rounding. For percentages applicable to all respondingagencies, see appendix III, p. 53.
The information the states have indicates that most culti-vation and distribution operations are small-time, dealing inquantities far less than many organizations smuggling Colombianmarijuana into the United States. In responding to our ques-tionnaire, the state law enforcement agencies in DEA's programestimated that an average of 13 percent of the domestic mari-juana cultivators and 14 percent of the distributors can bedescribed as large-scale organizations.2 The majority of thegrowers and distributors are, according to the states, small-time independent operators.
Although the questionnaire responses indicate that 47 per-cent of domestic marijuana is distributed locally (within the
2Thirty-seven agencies representing 37 states provided anestimate for cultivators, and 36 gave an estimate fordistributors.
39
S
same county), some agencies stated that it was distributed out-side of the state. Seven state agencies stated that 50 percentor more of the marijuana grown in their states was distributedelsewhere. Two of these agencies, in Oregon and Nebraska, esti-mated that 90 percent was distributed in this manner, and theagency in Kentucky estimated that 80 percent was distributedoutside of the state.
Not all operations are small--some are large and orga-nized. Law enforcement agencies report that plots have beendiscovered containing tens of thousands of marijuana plants;brokers have been identified who locate buyers in advance of thegrowing season and then make arrangements with growers to supplythe marijuana; and shipments of domestic marijuana to Canada,Japan, and South America have been reported. DEA has noted thatsome growers have formed organizations to protect their cropsfrom law enforcement officials and others. For example, accord-ing to DEA, members of one such organization in NorthernArkansas have reportedly used dynamite rigged to electronicdetonators to deter intruders.
More information on cultivation anddistribution operations is needed
All 37 state agencies in DEA's program that responded toour questionnaire said that additional efforts are needed tocollect and analyze intelligence regarding cultivators and dis-tributors. Twenty-seven (73 percent) of the agencies said thereshould be a great or very great increase in these intelligenceactivities, and 29 state agencies said they plan to increasetheir intelligence effort.
Certain intelligence activities become particularly impor-tant as marijuana crops become harder to detect. As notedearlier (see p. 21), many growers are trying to avoid detectionby taking various evasive actions and growing more plantsindoors. This means locating plants from aircraft and throughreports by citizens, the primary methods presently used, willbecome more difficult. Greater use of traditional drug enforce-ment techniques, such as relying on informants, will beneeded--especially to uncover the whereabouts of indoor growingoperations.
Increased intelligence efforts are also needed to betterassess the extent that large-scale organizations are involved incultivating and distributing marijuana. State law enforcementagencies said the majority of growers and distributors aresmall-time, independent operators. However, they said that thenumber of large-scale organizations involved in domestic mari-juana operations has been increasing overall and will continue
40
to increase. Of the 37 agencies that responded to our question-naire, 28 (76 percent) expect an increase in the number oflarge-scale organizations cultivating marijuana during 1984 and1985, and 26 (70 percent) expect an increase in the number oflarge-scale organizations distributing the marijuana. None of Sthe agencies expect a decrease. Intelligence activities identi-fying these operations and the violators involved may help lawenforcement agencies decide how to allocate their resources.For example, if the expected increase in large-scale marijuanaorganizations occurs, law enforcement agencies may choose tospend resources investigating these operations rather thaneradicating crops.
A law enforcement operation using intelligence to targetpeople instead of crops took place in Hawaii, where domesticmarijuana has been a problem for years. The purpose of thisoperation was to identify cultivation and distribution organiza- Stions for investigation. Law enforcement officials on theisland of Hawaii, where most Hawaiian marijuana is grown, foundthat the majority of the marijuana was being shipped to eitherHonolulu on the island of Oahu or to the continental UnitedStates. The primary means of export was the U.S. mail. To com-bat this situation, DEA, the Hawaii County Police Department, Sand the U.S. Postal Service initiated Operation Pele in 1983using a profile to identify suspected packages of marijuana.Packages meeting the profile were subjected to examination bynarcotic detector dogs. In February 1984, DEA reported that theoperation was essentially completed and had resulted in thesuccessful investigation of marijuana traffickers. S
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of questionnaire responses, one of the great-est needs of law enforcement agencies to increase the impact oftheir efforts against domestic marijuana is for more intelli- Sgence about the domestic marijuana industry. States and localagencies have spent a large percentage of their efforts eradi-cating marijuana plants and less effort collecting and analyzingintelligence concerning cultivators, distributors, and theiroperations. Greater emphasis on intelligence is planned by manylaw enforcement agencies. This may help the agencies keep pace Swith the expected increase in indoor cultivation and large-scalecultivation and distribution organizations. More intelligencemay help agencies direct their limited resources where thegreatest impact can be achieved on the domestic marijuanaindustry.
4
41
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
S
SiIAUWL hEM.Tom LEW$ RA
60Wt wotAJ. w vA NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS- of t thited *rtatts
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION. JUSTICE AND AGRICULTURESUBCOMMITTEE
OF TWCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
14C NWAl tWN 1m Smas
WsmOTOh. D.C. 2051S
March 22, 1983
The Honorable Charles A. BowsherComptroller General of the
United StatesP.S. General Accounting Office441 G Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Bowsher:
I have recently become alarmed by the possibility that theillegal production of domestic marijuana may be greatly under-stated. The amount of marijuana reportedly eradicated byFederal and State agencies in 1982 is greater than the estimatedamount of marijuana produced in that year. Obviously somethingis wrong.
This country must take a stronp enforcement posture on allillegal drug operations. However, we must be particularlyconcerned with drugs that are totally domestic so as to convinceother nations of our commitment to control drug abuse andencourage other nations to coonerate with us in our internationalgoals.
Accordingly, I would like GAO to evaluate the currentprograms within the Drug Enforcement Administration and otherappropriate Federal agencies which address the dorvestic mari-juana problem. Specifically, I would like your staff to address:
--the current roles, responsibilities, and expendituresof the Federal agencies that assist State and localagencies with this problem;
--what the States' needs may be and how satisfied they
are with the Federal assistance they currently receive;
--how States have used the changes in Posse Comitatuslegislation to request military assistance in detectingmarijuana growth;
42
. . ..
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
-2-
The Honorable Charles A. BowsherMarch 22, 1983
--how current intelligence estimates of domestic productionare assembled and what intelligence methods are used todetect, destroy, and measure illegal domestic marijuana;
--to what extent Federal agencies use the multi-stateregional intelligence networks to collect intelligencein this area.
You may contact Mr. William Lawrence of my staff to discussmore specific details as your review progresses. If warranted,the subcommittee will schedule hearings on this important issuewhen your work is completed. 0
Sincerely yours,
lenn'0 XChairm n
GE:wl:kar
0
0
-0
43
0
APPENDIX II 4PPENDIX II
FUNDS ALLOCATED TO STATESIN DEA'S DOMESTIC MARIJUANA
ERADICATION/SUPPRESSION PROGRAMa1983
States Amount
Alabama $ 41,000Arizona 20,000Arkansas 72,000California 233,000Colorado 44,500Delaware 10,000Florida 71,000Georgia 103,000Hawaii 112,470Idaho 32,750Illinois 25,000Indiana 32,000Iowa 7,500Kansas 10,000Kentucky 137,000Louisiana 28,000Maryland 17,000Michigan 0Minnesota 17,000Mississippi 51,000Missouri 33,000Montana 4,300Nebraska 9,000New Mexico 23,000North Carolina 60,000North Dakota 0Ohio 15,500Oklahoma 50,100Oregon 94,450Pennsylvania 15,500South Carolina 30,000South Dakota 0Tennessee 65,000Texas 38,000Utah 16,500Virginia 53,000Washington 96,700West Virginia 65,500Wisconsin 18,500Wyoming 0
Total $1,750,270
aFour States in DEA's 1983 domestic marijuana eradication andsuppression program did not receive DEA funds, however,according to DEA, they signed letters of agreement and receivedDEA-supported training.
44
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES BY 47 STATE LAWENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Review of Domestic marijuana Eradication/Suppression Program
The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information from your agency 0concerning domestic marijuana eradication/suppression efforts in your state.Our objectives are to determine what is known about the nature and extent of thedomestic marijuana problem, to ascertain what eradication and suppressionefforts are being undertaken in the states, to find out what states need to doto increase the effectiveness of their efforts, and to determine how satisfiedthe states are with the Federal assistance they are receiving.
The questionnaire is meant to be answered by an official(s) familiar with 0domestic marijuana eradication/suppression efforts in your state. When we referto "your state" we mean not only the state law enforcement agency, but allinvolved Federal, state, and local agencies.
The questionnaire can be completed in about an hour. Most of the questions canbe easily answered by checking boxes or filling in blanks. A few questionsrequire a short written answer. Space has been provided and if necessaryadditional pages can be attached. Where records or figures are not readilyavailable, we would like your best estimate.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed self-addressedenvelope within 2 weeks, if possible. If you have any questions, please contacteither Ron Viereck or Christine Broderick at 213-688-5033 or Lucy Hall at202-633-1559.
Thank you for your participation and cooperation.
If the self-addressed envelope is misplaced, please mail the completedquestionnaire to:
Mr. Ron ViereckU.S. General Accounting Office350 South Figueroa Street
Suite 1010Los Angeles, CA 90071
I PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE QUESTIONNAIRE BEFORE II PROVIDING ANSWERS. THIS WILL ENABLE YOUTO MORE ACCURATELY COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE.IYOU MAY CONSULT OTHER STATE/LOCAL OFFICIALSIN PROVIDING YOUR ANSWERS.
:OTr.: The number of valid responses is in parentheses in the left-hand riargin.)ues tionnaires were sent to 5" state law enforcement a:encies responsible fordomestic marijuana eradication and suppression efforts. 7en states were notin DEA's J983 program.
In questions that have percenta,;es as responses, we use the nean aver:i.;eunless otherwise indicated. The mean is the sum of all individual responsesdivided by the total number of states, and is often referred to as the "avera,;e."The mode is the response most frequently reported liy all the states. 1 hemedian is the response that falls in the niddle once all responses !lave 1,enordered from lowest to hi;hest--half the responses fall abov, the median andhalf fall below.
O
45
O
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
I. NATURE .YD EXTENT OF PROBLEM
To the best of your knowledge, please answer the following questions. GIVE YOUR
BEST ESTIMATE.
1. Which of the following methods (if any) are most often used in your state to(46) determine the number of domestic marijuana plants eradicated? (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY.)IDOl (1-2)
CDOI (3-')1. [:1) Measure the area and apply a standard formula (for example, number of
plants per square yard could always be used) (PLEASE SPECIFY THE (5-8)
STANDARD FORMULA)
2. 1121 Count the number of plants along the length and width of each field and
then multiply the two numbers
3. (421 Count every planct in the field
4. [41 Other (SPECIFY)
2. In 1983, what percent of the total number of domestic marijuana plants
(42) eradicated in your state was cultivated using the sinsemilla technique(cultivating seedless female nlants)? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.)
% Sinsemilla METAN - 28.nl' MODE - 10.0" MEDIA" - 20.0% (9-)
3. What percentage of the time does your state use each of the following methods to
(46) determine the type of domestic marijuana plant eradicated (sinsemilla versusother types)? (GIVE YOUR ZEST ESTIMATE. PERCENTAGES ,MUST TOTAL TO 300%.)
1PERCENTAGE 1/II
1. Visual inspection by officers
trained to determine types of imarijuana 55 21
2. Visual inspection by officers nottrained to determine types ofmarijuana 17 Z, A15-17r MAN AVrRACES
3. Samples of seizures are taken
to labs and analyzed 21
4. No determination is made 1, Z!
5. Other (SPECIFY)
00 !
-. In 1983, what percentage of detected mart#uana plots have been or will be
(46) eradicated? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE. MEAN - 87' MODE - 100-' MEDIA: - 1O0'
Percent ,--9)
I/Some percentages in this and other questions do not add to 100 percent becauseof rounding.
46
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
5. In 1983, what percentage of eradicated marijuana plots had the following plot
(46) sizes? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE. PERCENTAGES MUST TOTAL 100%.)
PERCENT OFI
ERADICATEDIPLOT SIZES I PLOTS I
1. 1 to 99 plants 57 lI (30-32)
I I
3. 500-999 plants 8 %I (36-38)IS
.. 1,000 to 4,999" plantsl 5 %1 (39-41)1 I
5. 5,000 to 9,999 plantsl .7 X) (42-44)
6. 10,000 or more plantsi .7 %1 (45-47)
100
6. In 1983, what percentage of the marijuana plots in your state were first *0(46) discovered by the following methods? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTLMATE. PERCENTAGES
HUST TOTAL 100%.)
I PERCENT OF)I MARIJUANA I
METHODS PLOTS I
1. Fixed-wing aircraft 1 22 %1 (48-50)
2. Helicopters i16 I (51-53iI I
3. Paid confidential 1informants 1 i (54-56)
I I
4. Officers sighting 3fields from ground 13 %: (57-59)
5. Citizen reports 33 %1 (60-62)
6. Other (SPECIFY)_ _
3 11 (63-n5)
1002
3
47
.0
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
- • 4
7. Please identify which of the following methods you believe offers great value in(47) first discovering the location of marijuana plots. (CRECK ALL TRAT APPLY.)
ID02 (1-2)CDO2 (3-4)
i. [(31 Fixed-wing aircraft
2. [31J Helicopters
(5-10)3. [311 Paid confidential informants
4. [151 Officers sighting fields from ground
5. [381 Citizen reports
6. [ 5] Other (SPECIFY).
8. Consider the following types of land which my be used to cultivate merijuana in
(46) your state. In your opinion, what percentage of domestic marijuana iscultivated on each of the following types of land? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.PERCENTAGES MUST TOTAL TO 100%.)
1PERCENT OFfI DOMESTIC I
TYPES OF LAND IMARIJUANA I
1. Land owned by grower 29 ZI (11-13)
2. Land rented or leased by grower; or Iland used by grower with owner's 24
permission IZ (14-16)I I
3. Trespassed land privately owned 26 ZI (17-!9)
4. Federal land 14 (20-22) 1II "
5. Public land other than Federal land 1 8 ZI (23-25)
I00%
48
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
9A. Whether or not there are any large-scale criminal organizations cultivatingdomestic marijuana in your state, which of the following factors does your stateagency use to determine that an organization ta !arie-scale? (CHECK ALL TEAT -APPLY AND DESCRIBE HOW THE FACTOR IS USED.)
I. [ 3-- Number of People ..... HOW MANY PEOPLE? - (26-28)
2. 10 Number of Plants ..... HOW MANY PLANTS? . (29-34)
3. [27 Dollar Value ......... HOW MANY DOLLARS? . (35-42)
4. [-QJ Other (SPECIFY) (43) 0
9B. In your opinion, based on the definition you specified in question 9A, what( percentage of domestic marijuana cultivators meet each of the following
descriptions? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE. PERCENTAGES MUST TOTAL TO 100%.)
IPERCENT OF I
CULTIVATORSII MEETING I
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION1
1. Smail-time independent growers r _ (4- 6)-I
2. Small criminal organizations I " Y (47-49,1 1
3. Large-scale criminal organizations I" I (50-52)I I
4. Other (SPECIFY) " %1_ (53-55)
1002
49
__0
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 0
IOA. Whether or not there are any large-scale criminal organizations distributingdomestically grown marijuana in your state, which of the following factors doesyour state agency use to determine that an organization is large-scale? (CHECK
ALL THAT APPLY AND DESCRIBE HOW THE FACTOR IS USED.)
I. [(]3 Number of People ..... HOW MANY PEOPLE? (?;k. - (56-58) -
2. [j: Pounds of Plants ..... HOW MANY POUNDS?_( - . (59-64)
3. L Dollar Value ......... HOW MANY DOLLARS?( ) (65-72)
4. IOther (SPECIFY)___________________________ (73)
103. In your opinion, based on the definition you specified in question IA, what( ; 1 percentage of domestic earijuana distributors meet each of the following
descriptions? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE. PERCENTAGES MUST TOTAL TO 100%.)03 (I-2)
I PERCENT OF 1 CD03 (3--)IDISTRIBUTORS1
I MEETING IDESCRIPTION [DESCRIPTION I
1. Small-time independent distributors I1 (5-7)
2. Small criminal organizations I Z1 (8-10)1 1
3. Large-scale criminal organizations I 11 (%I-13)} 1
4. Other (SPECIFY) I %1 (14-16)
10O%
11. In your opinion, what percentage of domestic marijuana cultivators and whatpercentage of domestic marijuana distributors traffic in the following
quantities within a one-month tiueframe? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE. PERCENTAGESMUST TOTAL TO 100%.)
1 PERCENTAGE I PERCENTAGE II OF I OF
QUANTITIES ICULTIVATORS IDISTRIBUTORSI
1. Less than 1100 pounds _ .-
2. 1100 to 2200 pounds "%: t_'3-28,
3. Above 2200 pounds '.1 (29-34)
i00% 100%
1/Number of ri-
6
50
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
12. In your opinion, what percent of the marijuana grown in your state is(4- distributed to each of the following areas? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.
PERCENTAGES MUST TOTAL TO 100%.)
Z Local distribution (within the county) (35-37)0
Z State-wide distribution (excluding the local distribution) (38-40)
_ _ Z 2 Nation-wide distribution (outside the state) (41-43)
100%
13. Overall in comparison to activities which have occurred during the past 3 years,how much Increase or decrease in your state has there been in each of thefollowing activities? (FOR EACH ACTIVITY CHECK ONE COLUMN.)
AMOUNT OF INCREASE OR DECREASEI Neither I I II Increase I I I I
I Great I I Nor I Great I Don't IIncrease Increase IDecrease IDecrease Decrease I Know
ACTIVITY 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 1 6
1. Cultivation of I I Imarijuana (excluding I I I I , I
sinsemilla) I 1 (44)
2. Cultivation of I I Isinsemilla I 1(45)
3. Nuaber of marijuana I t Iplants cultivated in I I Igreenhouses 1 1 _(46)
4. lumber of marijuana I 'plants cultivated I IIindoors (excluding I 'greenhouses) _ 1(47)
5. 'lumber of large-scalel p Icriminal organiza- !tions cultivating 1 . 1 1domestic marijuana 1 I _ (48)
b. Number of larRe-scaletcriminal organiza-
tions distributingdomestic marijuana i (_9)__•o
51
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
14. In your opinion during the next 2 years, how much increase or decrease do youexpect for the following activities in your state? (FOR EACH ACTIVITY CHECK ONECOLUMN.)
AMOUNT OF INCREASE OR DECREASEI Neither II Increase
Great I I Nor I Great II Increase Increase I Decrease I Decrease Decrease I
ACTIVITY 1 2 3 I 4 5
1. Cultivation of 1" IImarijuana (excluding I (iV ( ) (I. ) 1( " )7sinsemilla) l 1 1 1(50)1 71 4C ---- T -
2. Cultivation of 1 ( (44") (O (' I l
("i) sinsemilla 1 1(51)
3. Number of marijuana I I ? I Iplants cultivated in I W-) I (0 ) j ) jigreenhouses 1(52)
-. Number of marijuana I I , iI(4') plants cultivated
indoors (excluding Igreenhouses) 1(53)
5. Number of large-scalel I I I
(, ) criminal organiza-tions cultivating (1,) ( .,I Idomestic marijuana 1(54)
6. Number of large-scalel I ,,!I 1 I(4t. ) criminal organiza-
tions distributin)
domestic marijuana 1_1 1(55)
15. For each of the following time periods, how serious was the problem of growing(47) marijuana in your state? (FOR EACH TIME PERIOD CHECK ONE COLUMN.)
SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEMVery I Somewhat I
Major 1Of A Major! Moderate Little No Don't IProblem-1 Problem Problem I Problem Problem Know
T1:* PERIODS 1 2 3 1 4 5 6
1..983 J I (56)
2. 1981-1982 A _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _(57)
3. 1975-1980 "_ __ I _ " (58)
-. Prior to 1975 ( _ (59)
52
I lli ili . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .-
APPENDIX III APPENDIX IIIL
t. Considering domestic marijuana cultivation and distribution in your state, howmuch knowledge does your state have in each of the following areas? (FOR EACBAREA CHECK ONE COLUMNC.)
ID04 (1-2)AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE
Very Great I Great I Moderate I Little I No ICD04 (3-4)
Knowledge I Knowledge I Knowledge I Knowledge I Knowledge I •AREAS 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1
I I I
1. Amount of domestic 1 I2 'I
(47) marijuana cultivated I 1 1(5)I I I
2. Types of domestic I I I I I(47) marijuana cultivated 1 ;(6)
3. Extent of cultivation . I, I(47) indoors 1(7)
4. Extent of involvementl I(4
7) in cultivation by I o I I ?I I Ilarge-scale criminal I Iorganizations 10)
5. Extent of involvementl( 2 in distribution by I 92 1 I
large-scale criminal I I Iorganizations i I 1(9)
6. Distribution patternel I I 7 I_ _ _ (10)
II. ERADICATION/ENFORCEHENT EFFORTS
17. In what year did your state begin an organized effort to eradicate and suppress(41) domestic wmrijuana?
19 1-93 - 12, lq92 - 9, 19 1 - . 1 - (11-12)
18. Briefly describe the overall impact v'.r state's eradication/suppression efforts( 7) have had on domestic marijuana cul:t.ati m.
(13)2 - NIO !M:ct.
13 - 1n:hailo t1m:a,- or no inrW"' ,ruvil.,
3? - C'teJ varlou:; '1m: c-r. (. no!- commorn l:4: ' .. ,,' I' ,' * SmothoP!-- onlv -r)e ', . ; :aria i t ..,
53
53
~0
APPENDIX III APPENDIX IIII i ' 5
19. Considering the total amount of money spent in your entire state on domestic(47) marijuana eradication/suppression efforts in 1983. how much was provided by the
Federal, state and local governments? (FOR EACH LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT CHECK ONEROW. GIVE YOUR BESr ESTIMATE.)
(14-16)LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT
1 Federal I State I LocalAMOONT OF MONEY Government I Government I Government
1. $0 (4o money provided) I 15
2. 51-$1,000 _
3. $1,00l-$5,000 3,
4. $5,001-$10,000
5. $10,001-$25,OO _ _ _ 3
6. $25,001-S50,000 7 7__
7. $50,001-$100,000 1 _ _ I
8. More than $100,000 4 _ II ~ I
9. Don't know 3 4 i
20. If the Federal government eliminated funding/resource* to your state for its(46) domestic marijuana eradication/suppreseion efforts, what effect would this have
on activities in your state directed toward the domestic marijuana problem?(CHECK ONE BOX.)
(17)1. [4] Activities would not take place
2. [1I Activities would very greatly decrease
3. E.] Activities would greatly decrease
4. _ Activities would decrease
5. ]1] Activities would remain the same
6. [I Activities would increase
7. ([ Activities would greatly increase
3. [..Q] Activities would very greatly increase
10
54
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III S
21. In comparison to your state's efforts to reduce illegal trafficking in other
(47) drugs, how much higher or lower is the priority placed by your state on domestic
marijuana eradication/suppression efforts? 'CHECK ONE BOX.)(18)
1. [11 Much higher priority
2. _ 1 Higher priority
3. (19: About the sam priority
4. [17] Lower priority
5. 1 91 Much lower priority
22. Considering the domestic marijuana eradication/suppression efforts by state and 0
(45) local agencies in yonr state. What percentage of the efforts are made in each
of the following activities? (By efforts we man all resources expended. GIVE
YOUR BEST ESTIMATE. PERCENTAGES MUST TOTAL TO 100.)
ACTIVITIES PERC!"TAGE OF EFFORT
1. Eradication I %1 (19-21)
2. Investigation I i (22-24)
3. Intelligence collectioni I
and analysis %1 (25-27)
4. Public awareness -%1 (28-30)
5. Other (SPECIFY) I
%1 (31-33)
LOOZ
155
55
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
23. In L983, which agencies provided the following types of aesistance to yourstate'a domestic eradication/suppressiou efforts? (FOR EACH AGENCY CHECK ALLTYPES OF ASSISTANCE PROVIDED.)
1983I I Eradi- I 1 1 Eradl- I I
I I I Ication I I Off- Ication I I I
flnvest-IIneell-I Man- Ikerial I Road IEquip- Train-I Iliationligence I Funds ipower ISupportlVehiclelment I in& Nothing[
I I I I I I I I I IAGENCIES I 1 2 i 3 1 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 1 8 1 9 I
I 3 1 3 1 1 1 I II.DEA I31 3 16 I 2 3I_ ____ 1 1(34-42)
(47) 1 1 I I I I I I - IID05 (1-2)2. .S. I I I I I I I 1 CDO5 (3-4)
(46) Forest I 3 1 15 1 12 1 8 I 5 1 4 1 2±4 IService II 1 1(5-13)
II I I I
3.Bureau ofl 1 I(46) Land Man-( 1 6 1 4 1 2 1 1 ? 1 1
agement I 1 1(14-22)
4.F.B.I. 12 1 I1 0 2 1 3 _ _ _ I 29 1(23-31)(46) 1 1
5.Bureau ofl I I I(46) Alcohol, 11 13 1 1 0 0 17 1006 (1-1,
Tobacco, 1 CDO6 (3-4and IFirearms 1 1 1(5-13)
6..S. I(464 1 0 5 1 114-22)
7.Coast I(46) Guard 1 S 0 1 : _____ , I (23-31)
I I I I IID07 (1-2)8.State I I I I I i CDO7 (3-4)
(47) National 1 0 1 13 1 0 1 0 1 12 1 2 1 1IGuard 1 .(5-13)
9.State lawl(47) enforce- 1 40 7 31 1 27 21 4 1 I
mentagencies (14-22)
10.Other I(44) state i10 23 1 3 1 11 1 ?*
agencies 1 _(23-31)
QUESTION 23 CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
12
56
IsIAPPENDIX III APPENDIX III
CONTINUATION OF QUESTION 23
1983I i Eradi- I I lEradi- I I
Ication I I Off- Ication I I ID08 (1-2)
linvest-Iuntell-I IMan- lAerial I Road IEquip- I Train-I ICDO8 (3-4)
ligationligence IFunds power ISupport Vehicielment ILog INothingli I I - I I I'
AGENCIES I 1 I 2 1 3 I 4 1 5 6 1 7 8 1 9
ll.Local lawl I I I
(47) enforce- 1 44 1ment I IIagencies (5-13)
12.Regional I I IInforma- ItionSharingSystems 3I I I I Iproject(WSIN, INESPIN, I I IROCIC, IIMAGLOCLEN# I IMOCIC, I I IRMIN) I 1 1 1_ _1(14-22)
13.EI Paso I(4,) Intelli-I I I II
gence I I I I I I I2 ICenter I I I ......(EPIC) I 1 1(23-31) e
14.Other I I I I I IID09 (1-")( (SPECIFY) I I I I I 1 ICD09 (3-)
I I (5-13)
24. Did your state receive DEA funds for your state's marijuana eradication/( suppression efforts in 1983? (CHECK ONE BOX.)
(14)
1. (__ Yes .... CONTINU2E TO QUESTION 25
2. o ..... SKIP TO QUESTION 27
Z5. Which of the following best describes your state's participation with DEA informulating the 1983 marijuana eradication/suppression operation plan for yourstate? (CHECK ONE BOX.)
(15)W. - as never contacted by DEA regarding an operation plan
2. [__ Provided some input to DEA for the plan
3. [--_ Worked closely with DEA in formulating the plan
-. _ Formulated the plan and submitted it to DEA
'3
57
40
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
[I
26. In comparison to 1983, briefly describe how (if at all) your state would like to(2?) participate with DEA in formulating your state's 1984 marijuana eradication/--
suppression operation plan.
lo - at;fi'd with 'lann i. (16)
- Would like laIdnnin earl[eY" in ",'r.
7 - Oth,,r r ,; ;, - , : rovl linh va 'o1 2 0'l ion
27. Considering DEA's available resources, in 1983 how satisfied or dissatisfied wasyour state with each of the following types of assistance DEA may have providedfor your state's domestic marijuana eradlcation/suppression efforts? (FOR EACHTYPE OF ASSISTANCE CHECK ONE COLUMN.)
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OR DISSATISFACTIONI I Neither I I I I
II Satisfiedl I No II Very I I Nor Die- I Dis- lVery Die- lAssistancel(Satisfied (Satisfied I satisfiedi satiafledl satisfied) Provided I
ASSISTANCE 1 1 I 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 i 61 7 1 17 f 7 1 1 77
I. Investigative I :£z) I 8%) I I. ) t (2) I 1________(17)(45 ) I I i I I
2. Intelligence I (?< I ( ! ) I (2,) ( ) I (11 ) (18)( ) I : 1 I I I 12 I
3. Funds 1i~J. 2 J IL ~ ~ j(19)(L17 ) I - I . I I
4. Eradication I I I(47) manvower ( .) I ( (21) (2 ) I ) (20)
5. Aerial support 1 ( (i:) I 1 ) ( ' _ ( 2 ) (2)(4 -) I I
6. Eradication (7" "(F,)A equipment
7. Training i ( I (. ) ((4 ( ) I (( ( 3)(47)
14
58
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
28. Briefly discuss DEA assistance with which your state was particularly satisfied
(38) or dissatisfied. In your opinion, what changes should DEA make (if any) so that
your state can improve its domestic marijuana eradication/suppression efforts? (24)
11 - Satisfied
14 - Lissatisf-ied
1' - Satisfied with soim com: onents of DEA ,sjIsctar, - in! :
with other componofnts of the assitance.
29. Are you aware that assistance from the state National Guard may be available to(47) assist law enforcement agencies in your state's domestic marijuana eradicaton/
suppression efforts? (CHECK ONE BOX.)(25)
1. [3-1 Yes, I am aware and I know how to obtain assistance
2. [] Yes, I am aware, but I do not know how to obtain assistance
3. 8.1 No, I am not aware that state National Guard assistance is available
30. In 1983 was assistance needed in your state by any law enforcement agency from(47) the state National Guard for its domestic marijuana eradication/suppression
efforts? (CHECK ONE BOX.)(26)
1. [ _. Yes, state National Guard assistance was neededand requested.. .CONTINUE TO QUESTION 31
2. [7] Yes, state National Guard assistance was needed, but no request was made(PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NO REQUEST WAS MADE, THEN SKIP TO QUESTION 33)
(27)
3. [41 No, state National Guard assistance was not needed.. .SKIP TO QUESTION 33
4. [_b Not sure how the state National Guard could assist thestate's efforts...SKIP TO QUESTION 33
i5
59
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . .... _ . . . . . . , r . = . . . . . .. . ..
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
S
31. Briefly discuss the assistance (if any) which the state National Guard made to(20) the domestic marijuana eradication/suppression efforts in your state during
1983. If the state National Guard responded to your request, please describethe frequency, types, and results of assistance provided. If the state NationalGuard did not provide assistance, give the reason(s) why.
. - No assistance provided
14 - Received National luard assistance
32. Briefly describe any difficulties encountered in requesting state National Guard(20) assistance or vith assistance actually provided during 1983. (IF NO
DIFFICULTIES WERE ENCOUNTERED, WRITE "NOT APPLICABLE".)
11 - No difficulties (29)
C - 1,ifficulties with request only
2 - Difficulties with assistance only .
- Difficulties with both request ard assistance
60-6O
APPENDX IIIAPPENDIX III
I
APPENDIX III APNI I O
33. Whether or not the state National Guard provided assistance, how valuable would
each of the following types of state National Guard assistance be in your
.g-te's domestic esrijuana eradication/supprossion efforts? (FOR EACH TYPE OF
.!STANCE CHECK ONE COLUMI.)1010 (1-2)
AMOUNT OF VALUE CDI0 (3-4)
1 1 1 1 I Little IlVery Great Great moderate Some I Or Ho I
Value I Value I Value Value I Value I
TYPES-O ASSISTANCE 1 1 3 1 4 1 5 I
1.Loan of troop-lift 15 11 r 5 ' I(45) helicopters 1()
2.Loan of other types 1 18 12 7 5 4(4c) of helicopters 1 1(6)
3.Loan of fixed-ving 1 13 7 10 7 7(43) aircraft 1(7)
4.Loan of other equip- I(36) ment (SPECIFY)(e.g.4-Il 15 10 1 ..
wheel drivr trucks, I I
niht Iol,:s) I (8)
5.Use of base or other I7 lu (44) facilities (9)
6.Eradication manpower 12 10 : 1 (10)(L46) II0
7.treining and/or
(43) advice regsarding 1 10 1 E,loaned equipment (11)
8.Providing informatioul(47) on plots sighted by I
state National Guard 1 31 1! I 1 I Ipersonnel during I
military operations I (12)'-
9.On state National I I( 46) Guard craining I
flights, allow 1civilian law enforce-Iment officers onboardl i
for the purpose of I Idetecting marijuana I •plots I 1(13)
10.Other (SPECIFY) I
(3) I
61
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
34. During the next two years how likely is it that your state will receive(i) assistance from the state National Guard in your state's domestic marijuana
eradlcation/suppression efforts? What types of assistance does your stateexpect to receive? If your state does not expect to receive state NationalGuard assistance, why not?
(i5)7 - No assistance to be received
21 - Receiving assistance is :,ossible/likelyS
13 - Receiving assistance is possible if certain corditions chanre
35. Are you aware that assistance from the Department of Defense may be available to(47) assist law enforcement agencies in your state's domestic marijuana eradicaton/
suppression efforts? 'CH CK ONE BOX.)(16)
1. [7v] Yes, I am aware and I know how to obtain assistance
2. (1 Yes, I am aware, but I do not know how to obtain assistance
3. [-01 No, I am not aware that Department of Defense assistance is available
36. In 1983 was assistance needed in your state by any law enforcement agency from(c7) the Department of Defense for its domestic marijuana eradication/suppression
efforts? (CHECK ONE BOX.)
(17)1. [ 3 Yes, Department of Defense assistance was needed
and requested.. .CONTINUE TO QUESTION 37
2. [-7 Yes, Department of Defense assistance was needed, but no request was made(PLEASE EXPLAIN WlY NO REQUEST WAS MADE, THEN SKIP TO QUESTION 39)
(18)
3. (:2] No, Department of Defense assistance was not needed.. .SKIP TO QUESTION 39
4. (171 Not sure how the Department of Defense could assist thestate's efforts.. .SKIP TO QUESTION 39
18
62
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
37. Briefly discuss the assistance (if any) which the Department of Defense made tothe domestic marljuana eradication/suppression efforts 15 your st-e uring1983. If the Department of Defense responded to your request, please describe Sthe frequency, types, and results of assistance provided. If the Department ofDefense did not provide assistance, give the reason(s) why.
2 - No DO h assstance sov,- 9.
I - Received DOD as ,i' tance
38. Brlefly describe any difficulties encountered in requesting Department of(3) Defense assistance or with any assistance actually provided during 1983. (IF NO
DIFFICULTIES wERE ENCO=NRED, wRITE -NOT APPLICABLE.)
1 - No difficulties, (20)
191
2 - Difficulties with re le6t
0
0
l/Acs~rl in, So Li ': I, . .! ;, ' ' * ' • ', ! , .' ' ,ass.'2tance (1! ., toti~ . , w .......... :? ,' 'h ' o,, : uS 0,!! 1,, )0n
63
-_9
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
39. Whether or not the Department of Defense provided assistance-, how valuable wouldeach of the following types of Department of Defense assistance be in your
state's domestic marijuana eradication/suppreseion efforts? (FOR EACH TYPE OF
ASSISTANCE CHECK ONE COLLW,)
AMOUNT OF VALVEI I I -Little I
lVery Great I Great I Moderate Some I Or No IValue ) Value I Value I Value I Value I
TYPES OF ASSISTANCE I I I 2 3 _4 - 5 I
L.Loan of troop-lift 1 4 I I '
(43) helicopters I 1 1(21)
2.Loan of other types I I 7 -
(4t) of helicopters 1(22)I I I
3.Loan of fixed-wing I 1 4 1 . 1(L4,) aircraft _ 1(23)
4.Loan of other equip- I, I( ent (SPECIFY)__ I I
11(24)I I
5.Use of base or other 1 4 1 4 1 ',7 I(141) facilities 1(25)I II
6.Eradication manpower i1_[________I 1(26)
7.Training and/or I
(44) advice regarding I2 " I .
loaned equipment I1(27)
8.Providing informationl(47) on plots sighted by 1 - 1 I I i
Department of DefenseIpersonnel during tmilitary operations I 1(28)I I
9.3n Department of I(p,) Defense training I
flights, allowcivilian law enforce-,merit officers onboardlfor the purpose of I
detecting marijuanaplots __ (29)
.0.Other (SPECIFY) i(3)
I .(30)
20
64
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III-
40. DurinS the next two years, does your state expect to request assistance from the(38) Department of Defense in your state's domestic marijuana eradication/suppression
efforts? What types of assistance does your state expect to request? If yourstate does not expect to request Department of Defense assistance, vhy not?
(31)11 - No DOD assistance to be requested
9 - Requesting assistance is expected
18 -Requesting assistance is possible
21
65
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
41. Consider your state's overall needs (if any) for more resources during the next
2 years to increase the effectiveness of its domestic marijuana eradication/
suppression efforts. To what extent are each of the following needed in your
state? (FOR EACH RESOURCE CHECK ONE COLUMN..)ID11 (1-2)
LEVEL OF NEED CDI (3-4)
1 1 1 Little P
Critical I Great I Moderate Some I Or No I
I Need I Need I Need I Need I Need IRESOURCES 1 2 1 3 1 4 I 5 I
I I 1': I I I I
1.Eradication manpower (1
I (.i ( ) (I I (') (5)(:*! ) !, t1 ' I
2.Fixed-wing aircraft 1 (2?) (."'A (271) (1 (11 1) (6)
3.Troop-lift I ( ( .)(,44) helicopters l_ __ I "_ _ I (_ __ _ 1 _ I l(7)
4.Other types of I -7I .
(44) helicopters I _ ) _ ._)___,_)__ I I 1(8)
5.Off-road vehicles i 1,<.) I27) I ( )( (' (9)(W ) I I I
6,Sophisticated equip- II
(4) ment to locate ., , I .
marijuana plots I
(e.g., LORAN-C, ( 9, I I ) ' (7" (70 I (11 ) I
infra-red Iphotography) _ 1(O)
14
7.Equlpment for I I
((,) eradicating plants l ) I 1)
8.Investigative 1assistance (.'' _____-_ I (_____ (12)
9.Intelligence 2 1 1'. IIII
(47) collection and I . ") I ' 1 '1 ( I
analysis assistance 1 1(13)
10.Training (SPECIFY) I "I(Ia I!: , (1.) (11')
1(14)
11.3ther (SPECIFY)
(2) I(15)
-)-- 22
66
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
42. In comparison to 1983, how much increase or decrease in the following resources
and activities does your state plan to comit for your domestic marijuanseradication/suppression efforts in the next 2 years? (FOR EACH STATE/LOCALRESOURCE CHECK ONE COLUMN.)
AMOUNT OF INCREASE 01 DECREASEI Great = I No I I Great I Do't
STATE/LOCAL I Increase I Increase IChae I Decrease I Decrease I Know IRESOURCES I 1 3 4 5 6
1 3 1 17 1 22 I 0 1 0 1 4I.Eradication I (7%) (379) (48%) 1I (90)
(46) manpower I I I I I I 1(16)3 16 22 0 1 0 5 1
2.Fixed-wing I I I I(46) aircraft ]38 (11%) (17)
1 6 22- 0 0 143.Troop-lift i
(43) helicopters (2%) 1 (14%) (51%) (33%) 1(18)3 1 18 1 4 -
4.Other types of 0 I-(44) helicopters 1 (7%) (32%) (41%) (21%) 1(19)
4 1 21 0 0 65.Off-road 0 I
(46) vehicles () (33) 1 (46%) (13',)- 1(20)
6.Sophisticated 4 13 18 0 0"-(44) equipment to ; I
locate I (9%) (39%) 1 (41%) (21") .mariuana plotsl I I(e.g.. LOW4-C,1 Iinfra-red I-photography) I1(21)
7.Equipment for 2 19 1 17I
(46) eradicating 1 (40o) (41%) (37%) (17%) 'plants 1 :(22)
8.Inventigative I I 0 0 I(46) assistance (1) j (54%) (31,) 1 _() 1(23)
9.Intelligence 8 2 11 0 0 2(47) collection and
analysis (17',) 1(Y,) (21%) t I (4%) Iassistance 1(24)
10.Training I 21 10 I0 4 -
(18) (SPECIFY)______(55% (?c%) (11%) I
1(25).
11.Other 0 I I(0) (SPECIFY) I
1(26) m
23
67
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
II1. INTELLIGENCE
43. To the best of your knovledge, please indicate which intelligence activities (if
any) each of the folloving agencies conducted in 1963 to help sake cases against
cultivators and dietributora of domestic marljuana In your state. (FOR EACH
AGENCY CRECK ALL COLUMNS TAT APPLY.)ID12 (1-2)
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES CDL2 (3-4)SI Collect@ I I I II Actively I Istelli- I Disomr I No I II Gathers I genea I Analyzes I nates I Intelli- I II Intelli- IFrom Otherl Intelli- I Intelli- I gence I Don't I
zonce Agencies I aence I oe . I ActivILtsal Know IAGENCIES zi3 4 I 6
22 22 16 30 51. 22__ _ __ _ I 15
(47)I2. U.S. Forest 8 1 I 1 I i I 9 I 25 I
(47) Service I I I I(6) -.IIII I I I
3. Sureau of Land 3 0 0 1 2 I 15 27 I(47) Management I I I I(7)IIIII I I
4. Other Federal 7 5 5 I 7 ! 22(41) aSencies II I
(SPECIFY) I I IIIIII i IIIIII I I(8)
IM
5. State law 4 3 28 I(47) enforcement 35 28 0 0
agencyIII()
6. Local lav I(47 )enforcement 1 40 16 13 27 0 3
aSencies 1 (10)
7. Regional I I(47) Information I
Sharing System 1 10 18 1 14 1 17 1 5 1 22project I I I I I(WSI!N, NESPIr, IROCIC,MAGLOCLEN,.OCIC, RMIN) 1 _(11)
24
68
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
44. In comparison to the commitment each of the following agencies make in their
total domestic marijuana aradication/suppression effort. how much effort doeseach agency make to actively gather intelligence (not including the collectionof intelligence gathered by other agencies) to help make cases againstcultivators and distributors of domestic marijuana In your state? (FOR EACHAGENCY CHECK ONE COLUHN.)
AUNT OF EFFORTI Very 6i I 1 1
Great I Great I Moderate I Little I No IEffort I Effort I Effort I Effort I Effort I
AGENCIES 2 1 4 . 1.1. DEA 6 9 11 10 (12)
(414) 1 - 1-I I12. U.S. Forest 3 1 '4 1 8 22
(39) Service (13)
3. Bureau of Land 1 0 1 I 2 I(39) Management (14)
4. Other Federal I(36) agencies 1 2 I I .17 1
(SPECIFY)
(15)
5. State law I(47) enforcement I I 11 I
agency (16)
6. Local law I -'I(47) enforcement q I 1lq 4 .4 9
agencies I (17)
7. Regional(42) Information 3 I 3 1 8 2
Sharing System I Iproject I I(WSIN, NESPIN, IROCIC,
AGLOCLEN, -I.4OCIC, RuIx) 11(18'
69
lAl
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III m
45. Please identify which agency(*) gathers most of the Intelligence used to help
(47) make cases against cultivators and distributors of domestic marijuana in your
state. (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)(19-25)
I. [181 DEA
2. [2 ] U.S. Forest Service
3. [01 Bureau of Land Management
4. [3] Other Federal agencies (SPECIFY)
5. Q_1 State law enforcement agency
6. [37] Local law enforcement agencies
7. [7 Regional Information Sharing System project (WSIN, NESPIN, ROCIC.
,AGLOGLEN, MOCIC, RHIN)
46. In your opinion in comparison to current efforts in your state to collect and
(47) analyze intelligence regarding domestic marijuana cultivators and distributors,how much additional effort should be made? (FOR EACH TYPE OF VIOLATOR CHECK ONE
COLUMN.)
HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL EFFORT?
I~o Increase Little 7 Moderate I Great !very Great II in Effort I Increase I Increase I Increase I Increase I
VIOLATORS 1 I 2 I ir I h r 5 -
1 I 3 I 7 2 8 I1. Cultivators (2%) I (6%) I (1%) I (55%) 1 (17%) 1(26)
0 I 2 I 12 1 24 1 I2. Distributors I (4%) I (26%) I (51%) 1(19) 1(27)
47. Does one Federal, state, local or regional organization store and analyze
(47) intelligence regarding domestic marijuana cultivation and distribution for yourstate? (CHECK ONE BOX.)
(28)1. (311 Yes.. .CONTINUE TO OUESTION 48
2. [11 No .... SKIP TO QUESTION 49
4,8. Please provide the following information about the organization which stores and
(31) analyzes intelligence regarding domestic marijuana cultivation and distributionfor your state.
a. Name of Organization ctate ai,,.nc.: - 21 ; -T' other -
b. Is this organization a Regional Intelligence Sharing System project (WSIN,?ESPIN, ROCIC, MAGLOGLEN, MOCIC, RIIN) or a member of a regional project?
(29)
1. [:2 Yea 2. [(7] No 3. [T] Don't know
c. Is this organization a member of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)?(30)
1. (7]11 Yes 2. I No 3. [T.I Don't know
26
70
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
49. In your opinion, whether or not one organization stores and analyzes(47) Intelligence regarding domestic marijuana cultivation and distribution for your ...
scate, what organization would best fulfill this role? (CHECK ONE BOX.) )(31)
1. 13] DEA office ........................................... SKIP TO QUESTION 51
2. [-| EPIC (El Paso Intelligence Center) ................... SKIP TO QUESTION 51
3. [-1 Regional Intelligence Sharing System project (WSIN,NESPIN, IOCIC, MAGLOCLIN, NOCIC, RHIN) ............... SKIP TO QUESTION 51
4. ('J State law enforcement agency ..................... CONTINUE TO QUESTION 50 0
5. 212 Other (SPECIFY) CONTINUE TO QUESTION 50
50. Please answer the following two questions about this law enforcement agency.
(37)a. Is this organization a member of a Regional Intelligence Sharing System
project (WSIN, NESPIN, ROCIC, KAGLOGLEN, mOCIC, RMIN)? (32) 01. [ 1 Yes 2. (-] No 3. (71 Don't know
b. Is this agency a member of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)?
(33)1. [W1 Yes 2. (-) No 3. [I Don't know
51. In your opinion, how great is the need to have one organization to store and(47) analyze intelligence regarding domestic marijuana cultivation and distribution 0
for your state? (CHECK ONE BOX.)(34)
1. [j]Very great need
2. [.] Great need
3. [ 8] Moderate need
4. [ 1 Little need
5. ( 1 No need
S
27
71
I.
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
I
IV. INVESTIGATIONS AND FORPEITURE OF ASSETS
52. Has your state adopted laws (either civil or criminal) authorizing the seizure(47) and forfeiture of conveyances such as boats, airplanes, and cars which serve to
facilitate the exchange of contraband? (CHECK ONE BOX.)ID13 (1-2)
1. [13] Yes, civil law CD13 (3-4)
2. [E'] Yes, criminal law (5)
3. [i-B] Yes, both civil and criminal law
4. [0] Proposed legislation is currently before the state legislature
5. [71 No
6. 0] Do not know
33. Has your state adopted laws (either civil or criminal) authorizing the seizure(47) and forfeiture of property (such as real estate, legitimate businesses, etc.),
profits proceeds or other interests which are derived from engaging in drugtrafficking or other drug related offenses (similar to Federal law 18 USC 848)?(CHECK ONE BOX.)
(6)1. (ill Yes, civil law
2. [_1 Yes, criminal lew
3. [71 Yes, both civil and criminal law
4. [t_] Proposed legislation is currently before the state legislature
5. 131 No
6. (0 Do not know
28
72
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
e
54. To the best of your knowledge, how frequently have the following assets been
(7) seized and forfeited in raids and investigations involving domestic mari8uanl
cultivation or distribution in your state? (FOR EACH ASSET CHECK ONE COLUN.)
FREQUENCY OF SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE1 Always II I Never I
I Or Almost II I Or Almost IAlways Fre[uenll l Sometims I Seldom I Never
ASSETS 3 I 3 4 1 5
1. Automobiles and II 11 71K I I
trucks 1(7)
2. Airplanes 3I ___ t _ _ I(S)
3. Equipent9 13 C 10 1(9)I I I
4. Land __1_! _ _ _ _ 1(1O)
5. Houses and buildings 1_1 1 I _ _ Ii)I I
6. Businesses 0 421 p LP '(12)
7. Money 7 7 I 7 10 (13)
55. For each of the following assets, what type of law(s) is used when asset
seizures and forfeitures are involved in domestic marijuana cultivation and/ordistribution cases in your state? (FOR EACH TYPE OF ASSET CHECK ONE COLUMN.)
WHAT TYPE OF LAW IS USED?
I I I I I Always I I
I Always I I I lOr Almost I
lOr Almost I I Equally I Usually I Always I No II Always I Usually IFederal Orl Federal I Federal I Seizures I
State Law IState Law IState Law I Law I Law I made IASSETS 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1
1. Automobiles 20 I1 5 2 1 2 1 1(47) and trucks 1 1 1(14)
2. Airplanes 7 8 1 4 22 1(15)
(46) c 13. Equipment I 15 3_ _ _j _ (,6)
(47) I
.. Land I(17)(46) •
5. houses or 4 I+ I I(47) buildings I 1 (18)
I II I6. Businesses I _ '_ __I___ I ' ( (19)
(47) I I7. money 7 I ' I I(20)
(47)
29
73
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
*D
56. For each of the following assets, do Federal or state/local agencies maintain
control of seized and forfeited assets !n dom&tlc marijuana cultivation and/ordistribution cases? (FOR EACH TYPE OF ASSET CHECK ONE COLUMN?)
WHAT AGENCIES MAINTAIN CONTROL?I Always I I I I I Ilor Almost I I Equally I I Always I II Always I Usually IFederal Orl fOr Almost I No II State/ I State/ I State/ I Usually I Always I Seizures II Local I Local I Local I Federal I Federal I Made I
ASSETS 3II I I I I I
1. Automobiles 1 19 I 13 7 1 I 3 I(47) and trucks I I II I I 1(21)
I I' I I
2. Airplanes 8 7 3 I 3 1 3 22 1(22)(46) 11' I
3. Equipment 18 11 4 2 8 1(23)(46) i I I I I
4. Land 5 2 0 I 4 2 33 1(24)
(46) 1 1 1 1 1 I
5. Houses or 4 i iI 4 3 33 I
(46) buildings I I _ 1 1(25)I I I i
6. Businesses 2 2 1 3 I 1(26)(46I l I I
1. Money 12 13 0 1 0 4 7 1(27)(46)
57. How such investigative assistance (if any) do your state and local lawenforcement agencies receive from each of the following Federal agencies toseize and forfeit domestic marijuana cultivator and/or distributor assets? (FOREACH AGENCY CHECK ONE COLUMN.)
AMOUNT OF INVESTIGATIVE ASSISTANCE CURRENTLY RECEIVED
IVery Great I Great I Moderate I Little I No I,Assistance lAssistance IAssistance IAssistance IAssistance I
AGENCIES I 1 21 3 1 4 5 I
1. DEA 4 118 8 16 1(2 )
(47) I2. Bureau of Alcohol, 1 5 34 I
(47) Tobacco, and Firearmsl _ _ 2 5 ]__4 (29)
3. Federal Bureau of I 1 1 2 6 34 1(47) Investigation I I 1 1(30)
4. U.S. Attorneys 2 1 1 I 1(31)(47) 1 1 1 I
5. Internal Revenue 1 0 12 1I 1F 1(46) Service 1 1(32)
6. Other (SPECIFY) I 0 1 I(1) I II
1 1(33)
30
74
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
0
58. How much of an increase or decrease in investigative assistance would your state
end local lay enforcement agencies like to receive from each of the followingFederal agencies to seize and forfeit domestic marijuana cultivator and/ordistributor assets? (FOR EACH AGENCY CHECK ONE COLUMN.)
ID14 (1-2)CD14 (3-41,
AMOUNT OF INCREASE OR DECREASE IN ASSISTANCENeither I
Increase II Great I I Nor I Great II Increase I Increase I Decrease I Decrease I Decrease I
AGENCIES I I -I 3 4 1 5_1
I. DEA 12 2 _ ___ _ I(S) -
(47) I 02. Bureau of Alcohol, 6 15 26 I
(47) Tobacco, and Firear;.mI(6)
3. Federal Bureau of 8 21 17 1 I(46) Investigation 1(7)
8 2'2 17 0 04. U.S. Attorneys 2 1 I()
(47) I -I5. Internal Revenue 14 1 14 1 0 I 0
(47) Service 1(9)
6. Other (SPECIFY) 2 1 1 0 I(4) I
1(10)
59. How often, if at all, have domestic marijuana cases in your state been w(47) prosecuted in Federal court by certified (cross-designated) District Attorneys -
in order to take advantage of Federal forfeiture laws? (CHECK ONE BOX.)-- (11)
1. [:1] Very frequently
2. (.1 Frequently
3. [41 Sometimes
4. [a] Seldom
5. [23N sever
6. 9) Do not know
31
75
-9
APPENDIX III APPENDIX IIIS
60. In your opinion, how such of an increase or decrease in the number of domestic(47) marijuana prosecutions involving forfeiture of assets would result in your state
if District Attorneys were certified (cross-designated) to prosecute cases inFederal court? (CHECK ONE BOX.)
(12)1. [--1 Great increase
2. 1t1 Increase
3. [01 Neither increase nor decrease
4. [T7] Decrease
5. [1 Great decrease
61. In 1983, how many domestic isrijuana suspects were arrested in your state (to(44) date)? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.)
Total number for all 44 statec4,040 Number of Arrests !!EAN - 32 (13-16)
62. In 1983, what percentage of the number of arrested domestic marijuana suspects(44) in your state were arrested at the time a domestic marijuana plot was raided or
at a later date? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE. PERCENTAGES MUST TOTAL TO 100%.)
PERCENT OF SUSPECTS
1. Suspects arrested at the timeof a raid M,1EAN 6' D1 I M AN - 7 (17-19)
2. Suspects arrested at a later date I 5!AN 35 '.. E TAN2-. (20-22)
100%
63. In 1983, what percentage of the domestic marijuana plot raids in your state had(46) an arrest (suspected marijuana violator) at the time of the raid or
at a later date? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE. PERCENTAGES MUST TOTAL TO 100%.)
I PERCENT OF RAIDS I
1. Raids with arrest at the time of 1 1a raid I 3 II (23-25)
2. Raids with arrest at a later date _ 2_) _) (26-28)
3. Raids without any arrests 1 7 11 (29-31)
i00%
72
76
APPB IX III APPENDIX III
64. In your opinion, overall how willing or unwilling are each of the followingtypes of attorneys to prosecute domestic marijuana cases in your state? (FOREACH TYPE OF ATTORNET CHECK ONE COLUIM.) •
LEVEL OF WILLINGNESSI I Neither II I WillingI
I Very I I Nor I I Very I NoI Willing I WillinlUnwilling Unwillinc Unwilling Opinion I
ATTORNEYS 1 1 I 2I--1 3 6 '1I I III1. District 1 11 1 24 1 8 1 1
(46) Attorneys I I I(32)6 I 17 8 3 1 1' J
2. U.S. Attorneys 1I 6 1 8 3 1(33)(47)
65. In comparison to the penalitie. you believe are necessary to deter marijuana(47) cultivators and distributors in your state, overall how strict or lenient are
the sentences given by each of the following courts? (FOR EACH COURT CHECK ONECOLUMN.)
HOW STRICT OR LENIENT?J Neither I I
I I Strict I I I Ii Very I I Nor I I Very I No II Strict I Strict I Lenient I Lenient I Lenient I O I
COURTS I T1 T 3 T hII2 1 4 21 7 2 .
I. State courts I 2 11 I I I _(34)2 I 7 I 18
2. Federal courts I 2 7 I 4 18 (35)
V. STATISTICAL INFORMATION (ANSWERED BY 10 STATES NOT IN 1:A' i 8'1R PPORAM)
66. In 1983, what is the total number of domestic marijuana plants which have been(10) eradicated by Federal, state and local agencies In your state? (GIVE YOUR BEST
ESTIMATE.)TOTAL NUMBER FOR ALL 10 STATES49,359 Number of Plants Eradicated MEAN - u,936 (36-40)
67. In 1983, what is the total number of marijuana plots which have been eradicated(10) by Federal, state and local agencies in your state? (GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.)
TOTAL NUMBER FOR ALL 10 STATES414 Number of Plots Eradicated '!EA!J 41 (41-44)
33
77
*1
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III
lS
68. In 1983, how many eradication raids occurred in your state? GIVE YOUR BEST
(10) ESTIMATE.TOTAL Nt1'.MB:F Fl)P ALL 10 TAT'-
L Number of Raids , TAN - 41 (45-48)
69. Briefly discuss the extent you have encountered violence, resistance, booby) traps, or weapons when conducting eradication raids in your state.
(49) 1- Violence encounterod
5 - No volerico encount'r,!
70. Briefly discuss why your state did not request or receive DEA funds for yourstate's eradication/suppression efforts in 1983. Does your state plan torequest DEA funds in 1984?
(50)I - No plans to request in 11854
2 - Plan to request in 1'84
, - May reouent ln 1184
Please provide your name, title, and phone number so that we can contact you ifwe need to clarify any of your answers.
Name
Title
Telephone Number (_)Area Code
Thank you for your cooperation.
3A
(186704)
78
*U.S. eOY3MUql vuMe 01M5O 1 1904 0-421-043/29
n IN
v4
Aw
tt
7.0 ft 4
4.O Zj -2 -4 L. .'s
- A ; 7 V ya ~ 'or
,4 '1 -, o .4 .fXI