ERADICATION OF MARIJUANA WITH PARAQUAT THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1983 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a.m., in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William J. Hughes (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Hughes, Morrison, Shaw, and Sensenbrenner. Staff present: Hayden W. Gregory, counsel; Eric E. Sterling, assistant counsel; Charlene Vanlier, minority associate counsel; and Phyllis N. Henderson, clerical staff. Mr. HUGHES. The Subcommittee on Crime will come to order. The Chair has received a request to cover this hearing in whole or in part by television broadcast, radio broadcast, still photography or by other similar methods. In accordance with committee rule 5(a), permission will be granted, unless there is objection. Is there objection? Hearing none, permission is granted. The Subcommittee on Crime is meeting this morning to examine the magnitude of marijuana production in the United States and other nations. On October 5 of this year, we heard testimony concerning issues involved in the eradication of marijuana with paraquat. Today's hearing is designed to provide us with additional information on the marijuana production and control effort. Our general objectives are to obtain a clear and current description of the magnitude of marijuana production in the United States and other nations, and the various control methods in use in the United States and in foreign nations. We also need to know what areas require further research. More specifically, today we hope to obtain current information on the following: The cooperation between various Federal, State, and local agencies with responsibility for domestic control, and cooperation between the United States and other countries; the nature and extent of domestic illegal marijuana production and of other crime related to that production; the adequacy of resources to control marijuana and fight associated crime; and the environmental effects of control alternatives. High rates of marijuana use in the United States plus high rates of domestic and foreign production have remained constant characteristics of the marijuana supply-and-demand equation. Domestic production in recent years has expanded tremendously. It has cre ated serious problems for our law enforcement community and public land management personnel. It is estimated that domestically produced illicit marijuana has a value in excess of $10 billion. More than 20 million Americans use marijuana regularly. Social costs related to this use include a several billion dollar expenditure for law enforcement alone. These astonishing figures underscore the magnitude of the problem we face. I might say parenthetically that I am not sure we really have an adequate base to measure that magnitude of the problem. It is a large problem, in any event. In 1982 alone, there were 455,600 marijuana-related arrests in this country. To evaluate our strategy and the proper allocation of scarce resources, we must collectively and objectively evaluate all available information, including information on production and eradication. I believe that if we are going to control the current drug abuse blight on U.S. society, we must educate our youth so that demand for drugs is eliminated. But I also believe that, until we have accomplished the task of educating our youth to be drug free, we must continue our efforts at drug crop eradication and law enforcement. We are fortunate today in being able to hear from representatives of some of the Federal and State agencies most directly involved with marijuana eradication efforts. We are also pleased that we will be able to hear testimony by witnesses concerned about the environmental effects of the various marijuana control alterna tives. I might say that I don't think that this is the last of the hearings. I can see a need perhaps to take additional testimony from other witnesses who have indicated a desire to testify who, unfortunately, can't be here today due to the confines of the workday that we have to work with here on the Hill. So it is my expectation that we may have additional hearings sometime early in 1984. The Chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Shaw. Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recent estimates indicate that 20 percent of the marijuana consumed in the United States today is grown in the United States. Domestic cultivation harms our society in several respects. The foremost is the harm to the smoker. Contrary to what many believe, studies have now concluded that hazards of marijuana to the smoker's health are greater than were first imagined. Unfortunately, 65 percent of our high school students smoke marijuana at least once. The profits from this illicit crop do not aid the communities, but rather the black market strips the communities of legitimate money purchases and revenue that could be better used for such things as education. Finally, the growers threaten the safety and peace of mind of the community by ruining the environment with fertilizers, chemicals, and by setting boobytraps, and personally threaten the people on public lands. This is intolerable. Today's witnesses afford us the opportunity to study the law enforcement's response to the eradication problem. The law enforcement initiative cannot be understated. Unless we act swiftly and effectively, the cultivation will get out of hand and become increasingly difficult to counteract, if it has not already gotten out of hand. As we succeed in our efforts to reduce foreign production of cannabis, we increase the demand for domestic cultivation. We must have a good law enforcement effort in place to respond to the growing motivation behind this crime. On the positive side, DEA and other Federal officials are working hard with 40 States to develop law enforcement initiatives. The status of two such programs, CAMP in California and the State police program in Arkansas, will be explained to us today. Mr. Chairman, their tremendous hard work and innovation indicates to me that domestic eradication can and must be successful. Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman. Before I introduce the first witness before the subcommittee today, I would like to recognize the tremendous contributions that have been made to this subcommittee by one of our staff, Dennis Hamel, who has been with us since August of this year on loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. He is part of the Legis fellows program, an outstanding program, that shares experts in various fields in the executive branch to members of the legislative branch. Dennis has been primarily responsible for structuring hearings, which I think probably have provided us with a good base to look at this whole marijuana cultivation issue. We are indebted to Dennis. Dennis, we wish you well as you leave us to go back to your functions with the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. In our hearing, we will examine the magnitude of marijuana production and control efforts in the United States and foreign nations. Our first witness will provide data on foreign nations. The Subcommittee on Crime is pleased to have this information provided by Mr. Dominick DiCarlo. Mr. DiCarlo is the Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters. He brings to his position a most distinguished background in law enforcement and Government. For some 16 years, Mr. DiCarlo served in the New York State Assembly, including 3 years as deputy minority leader. He formerly was an assistant U.S. attorney for the eastern district of New York, and served as chief of organized crime and racketeering, and later as a special prosecutor for the Treasury Department. On the New York Assembly, he was vice chairman of the New York Joint Legislative Committee on Crime, and served on the Select Committee on Investigating the Attica Prison. Mr. Secretary, we are just delighted to have you with us once again. We have your prepared statement which, without objection, will be made a part of the record in full. You may proceed as you see fit. We have gone through your very thorough statement and if you can, we would appreciate your endeavoring to summarize so we can get in questions. But you may proceed as you see fit. TESTIMONY OF DOMINICK DICARLO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS MATTERS, ACCOMPANIED BY CLYDE D. TAYLOR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS MATTERS Mr. DICARLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The subcommittee has asked our Bureau to testify on the production of marijuana in foreign nations which export marijuana and other cannabis products to the United States, and on control efforts in those nations. There were important cannabis developments in 1982, including significant changes in the cannabis market profile, an improved capability for eradication, and enhanced interdiction capabilities at the source and on our borders. A table attached to this testimony reports the national marijuana supply and import estimates of the National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee, NNICC, for the years 1979 through 1982. The 1982 figures are preliminary, pending final NNICC approval, which is expected by the end of the year. I wish to emphasize the softness of these estimates of production, imports, and availability which we are striving to improve. The preliminary NNICC estimate is that national supplies of marijuana were in the range of 12,340 to 14,090 metric tons in 1982, compared to a 1981 estimated range of 9,600 to 13,900 metric tons. The estimate is that imports were in the range of 10,340 to 12,090 metric tons, compared to a range of 8,700 to 12,700 metric tons in 1981. Colombia continues to dominate the U.S. marijuana market. Estimated imports from Colombia in 1982 were in a range of 7,000 to 8,000 metric tons, compared to a range of 7,500 to 11,000 metric tons in 1981. The NNICC estimate is that Colombia's share of total U.S. supply declined from 79 to 57 percent. The estimate is that domestic production increased from a range of 900 to 1,200 metric tons in 1981 to an estimated 2,000 metric tons in 1982, increasing the domestic market share from 9 to about 15 percent. Jamaica's estimated market increased from an estimated 9 to 16 percent, while Mexico's estimated share rose from 3 to 6 percent. Retail marijuana prices were reported to be relatively static in 1982; however, Jamaican wholesale prices increased slightly while Colombian wholesale prices declined. Marginal exporters to the United States in 1982 included Belize, Thailand, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Panama, which are now estimated to account collectively for 6 percent of the U.S. cannabis market. A factor affecting the market profile, according to DEA, is the preference among U.S. users for high-grade cannabis, such as sinsemilla, which is produced in the United States and in Jamaica, Belize, and Mexico. This move away from lower potency marijuana is expected to continue. Authority for U.S. support of marijuana eradication programs using paraquat was restored by the Congress in December 1981. The Department of State thereafter began the process of compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act and related Executive orders to satisfy health and environmental concerns related to paraquat use. On December 21, 1982, I approved an environmental impact statement permitting U.S. support for programs for herbicidal eradication in the Western Hemisphere. Imports of hashish are estimated to have remained at approximately 200 metric tons. The principal suppliers of hashish were Lebanon, Pakistan, and Morocco, with a small but indeterminate amount of hashish oil being provided by Jamaica. The NNICC analysts are projecting increased cannabis cultivation in Colombia in 1983, but have not made projections for Mexico, Jamaica, and other suppliers. However, there is a question as to how much of the foreign production will reach the U.S. market in 1983-84. This year, marijuana eradication programs using paraquat have been conducted in Mexico and Belize, while Colombia continued its manual eradication programs. There are ongoing enforcement efforts in Mexico, Belize, and Colombia which are designed both to eradicate cannabis crops and to seize marijuana in transit. Also, Jamaica has begun what we hope will be a sustained eradication and interdiction program. The Belizan program is particularly noteworthy, because it involved a bilateral agreement under which Belize and Mexico conducted a joint eradication project with U.S. assistance. The objective is to contain any expanded 1983 cultivation by limiting imports through interdiction efforts while simultaneously preparing the eradication programs needed to reduce cannabis cultivation in all major source areas. The Government of Mexico is continuing its effective herbicidal eradication programs against marijuana. We are hopeful that Colombia and Jamaica will undertake comprehensive cannabis eradication programs in 1983 and 1984, including the use of herbicidal eradication where appropriate. We will continue to encourage the governments of cannabissource countries to undertake comprehensive eradication programs, and we will continue to monitor developments in potential new sources as we have in Belize. And we will continue our role in the multiagency effort to interdict trafficking in marijuana and other drugs through the Caribbean and Central America. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The statement of Mr. DiCarlo follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY DOMINICK L. DICARLO, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS MATTERS SUMMARY The Subcommittee has asked our Bureau to testify on the production of marijuana in foreign nations which export marijuana and other cannabis products to the United States, and on control efforts in those nations. 1983 developments There were important cannabis developments in 1982, including significant changes in the cannabis market profile; an improved capability for eradication; and enhanced interdiction capabilities at the source and on our borders. A table attached to this testimony reports the national marijuana supply and import estimates of the National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee (NNICC) for the years 1979 through 1982. The 1982 figures are preliminary, pending |