>>> Part 5 of 8...
grown cannabis."7
By the late 1980's legal challenges to herbicide use had been
exhausted, though the litigation had established stringent rules and
regulations for herbicide use.  In many respects, the desire to use
herbicides in the U.S. was driven as much by foreign policy
considerations as by addressing the DEA's manpower problems.
"Foreign countries have turned to the United States for leadership
in narcotic and drug enforcement because of its support for herbicidal
eradication of opium and cannabis in source countries throughout the
world.  The United States resolve is to employ these same eradication
techniques, which have been questionable to some against domestic
produced marijuana.  During the past year the traditional manual
eradication of cannabis was supplemented with an ambitious herbicidal
spray operation in Hawaii.  These techniques should send a strong
message to cannabis producing countries."8
Despite the use of forfeiture, mandatory/minimums, herbicides, and
the use the National Guard and other federal agencies, and after over
ten years of zealous eradication activity, the DEA is left by 1990 to
defending its defining concept rather than its accomplishments.
"It is estimated that about 25 percent of the marijuana consumed in
the United States is produced domestically.  Adequate effort and
resources must be expended to deal with the threat.  The concept of
this program must be pursued.  Continued support from all will ensure
a proactive posture in dealing with this illicit phenomenon."9
Nonetheless, "DEA's goal is to significantly reduce the
availability of cannabis in the United States."10  In a complete shift
from the seizure driven policies of the mid 1980's, the new forfeiture
driven eradication program favors arrests.
"DEA's suppression policies will require a near-term focus on
pursuing the producers, rather than the product.  If successful, this
policy will change to targeting distribution networks.  The emphasis
will be to vigorously eliminate organizations by increased arrests and
seizures."11
From the DEA's perspective, no one really understands how important
it is to prosecute and incarcerate marijuana cultivators.  So, the "DEA
will educate Federal and state prosecutors and the judiciary on the
importance of deterrence in national and international cases."12  They
will also "assist domestic demand reduction efforts by raising public
awareness about the harmful effects of marijuana use.  DEA, in
cooperation with the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), will
aggressively publicize research findings on the hazards of high-THC
products."13  Clearly, the DEA realized they had a credibility problem
that was continuing to grow - they could only justify their growing
seizures, $38 million in 1990, if the public believed marijuana was a
dangerous drug.
It is not a coincidence that the DEA began a new propaganda
campaign in 1990.  As reviewed above, in 1989 one of their own
Administrative Law Judges ruled in a petition brought by NORML and other
parties that marijuana had medical value and should be made medically
available.  Judge Francis Young stated that the evidence convinced him
that marijuana was one of the safest drugs known to man.  The DEA has
politicized the marijuana issue sufficiently to suggest their
opposition to medical use of marijuana is solely based on fear that it
will undercut their prosecution and seizure program.
In his 1990 National Drug Strategy William Bennett called the
domestic marijuana cultivation situation "intolerable" and called for an
increase in funding from $8 million to $16 million in 1990 to wipe it
out.  He claimed that success against domestic cultivation "should be a
bench mark of national anti-drug resolve." 14  The DEA was able to triple
their funding of local eradication efforts in 1991 and 1992, with no
appreciable increase in the number of seizures either year.15  (See
Exhibit 2.)
Despite all the problems detailed above, and the need to involve so
many other agencies and resources over the years, the DEA has always
maintained that it seized a large percentage of the marijuana grown in
the United States.  "Officially, the DEA maintains it eradicated half
the U.S. crop, although privately law enforcers say they snagged only
10 to 40 percent of the total."16  A California based DEA agent claims
that outdoor growing in the state has been reduced by 3/4 .17
Kentucky state police believe they seize no more than half of the
marijuana grown in the state, and they have the most aggressive campaign
in the country after Hawaii's.18
Statistically speaking, if one of the most aggressive programs
only seizes half of the cultivated marijuana, it is impossible for the
entire program to seize half of the country's production.  Cultivation
is too diffuse to average 50% in every eradication program, and few
states will boast of eradicating that much of the marijuana crop.
Perhaps it is for this reason that the DEA claims they aim to get 70%
of the Tennessee marijuana crop annually, and that it is the fourth
most successful in the country. 19
Regardless of the DEA's success rate, or lack thereof,
"Domestically grown marijuana accounted for 10% of all marijuana in
1980 this has increased to 25% in 1992, with a production estimate of
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------