Marijuana

Introduction and Trends

The prevalence of marijuana and the continuing high demand for the drug underlie its stability as one of the foremost drug threats. More than 95 percent of state and local law enforcement agencies describe the availability of the most widely abused illicit drug as high or moderate, and 75 percent of illicit drug users aged 12 or older report current use of marijuana. The steady supply of and demand for marijuana overall and the strong, stable market for its distribution often allow for the financial stability of drug traffickers, many of whom traffic marijuana to bankroll other criminal activity, such as producing or distributing other illicit drugs like methamphetamine and cocaine. Marijuana sales yield high, steady profits for producers and distributors, yet the drug is relatively inexpensive for users.

Nationally, the threat associated with marijuana trafficking has declined and lags behind that associated with methamphetamine and cocaine, including crack. According to NDTS data, the percentage of state and local law enforcement agencies identifying marijuana as their greatest drug threat has declined each year from 2002 to 2004 (20.4% to 13.1% to 12.0%). Moreover, current data indicate that the percentage of agencies identifying marijuana as their greatest drug threat is considerably less than the percentage identifying methamphetamine or cocaine (see Figure 3 in Scope and Methodology section).

Such data indicate that despite the volume of marijuana trafficked and used in this country, for many in law enforcement marijuana is much less an immediate problem than methamphetamine, for example, which is associated with more tangible risks such as violent users and toxic production sites. Bearing this out, NDTS data also indicate that only 4.6 percent of state and local law enforcement agencies across the country in both 2003 and 2004 identified marijuana as the drug that most contributes to violent crime. Asked to identify the drug that most contributes to property crime, 9.5 percent of agencies nationwide identified marijuana in 2004, more than twice the response for violent crime, but less than reported in 2003 (11.8%).

While trying to effectively allocate resources to combat marijuana in addition to other, more socially disruptive drugs, U.S. law enforcement is challenged to overcome the perception that marijuana is a drug that does little harm. In 2002 an estimated 94 million persons aged 12 or older reported trying marijuana or hashish at least once in their lifetime. Many of these users likely suffered no severe ill effects and have assumed from their unscathed experiences that marijuana use is harmless. For example, according to a 2003 news release from the Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE), while 73 percent of nonusers believe marijuana is very harmful to one's health, only 11 percent of current users believe so. The perception that marijuana use is not harmful--common among users and shared to some extent among nonusers--is vital to ongoing local and state-level grassroots attempts to legalize marijuana under the guise of creating sensible law enforcement priorities and providing compassionate care for those with medical needs.

Such views aside, in reality marijuana is not harmless. Marijuana's effects can include those problems attendant to cigarette smoking as well as problems with distorted perception and loss of coordination, which can contribute to household, occupational, or vehicular accidents. For example, in 2001 an estimated 38,000 U.S. high school seniors reported that they had crashed a vehicle while driving under the influence of marijuana. Other effects include problems with memory and learning, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and increased heart rate. According to one study, fewer heavy users of marijuana completed college and more had household incomes of less than $30,000 as compared with a control group, despite similar educational and economic backgrounds. (In this study, heavy users smoked marijuana a mean of 18,000 times and no less than 5,000 times, while control group subjects smoked at least once but no more than 50 times in their life). NIDA reports that another study has indicated that a user's heart attack risk quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana.

The production of marijuana also can harm the environment. The by-products of outdoor grows can potentially contaminate waterways or destroy vegetation and wildlife habitat through the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides or from the trash and human waste left behind at large cultivation site encampments such as those on public lands. Outdoor cultivators also are known to start fires to clear timber or ground cover to prepare large sites. Indoor cultivation, too, can result in potentially harmful situations in areas surrounding the cultivation site, such as an increased risk of fire or electrocution posed by rewiring or jury-rigged electrical bypasses in grow houses and potential exposure to toxic molds that result from the high levels of relative humidity found in grow houses.

To Top     To Contents

Availability

The escalating prevalence of higher potency marijuana such as sinsemilla appears to have resulted in an increase in average potency levels. Samples of marijuana testing at 9 percent or higher THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) increased more than 600 percent from 1994 (104 of 3,281 samples) to 2002 (545 of 2,378 samples), according to data from the Potency Monitoring Project.¹³ Yet the increase in the average potency of tested marijuana and sinsemilla during that period was less dramatic. Average THC levels for both types rose approximately 50 percent, from 3.50 to 5.11 percent THC for marijuana and from 7.49 to 11.43 percent THC for sinsemilla.

NDIC Comment: Marijuana potency has increased; however, it is unlikely that average potency levels will reach 20 or 30 percent THC in the near term. Even with the advances in indoor cultivation techniques or marijuana production methods used throughout the United States and Canada where much of the higher potency marijuana is produced, THC levels remain, typically, under 15 percent. Growers can and do produce marijuana with potency levels over 20 percent; however, not all growers have the capability or the determination either to produce top-quality marijuana or to achieve the highest potential yield from their crops. The trend toward larger grows controlled by organized crime groups in Canada and, to a lesser extent, in the United States should help stabilize or further slow the rise in average potency levels. The interests of DTOs and criminal groups are in marijuana's profitability, and they are unlikely to invest the care required to mass-produce top-quality marijuana, particularly in the drying, manicuring, and curing stages of production. Thus, average THC levels likely will continue to increase only gradually or remain relatively stable.

Demand

The consequences of marijuana use evidenced in ED mentions and treatment admissions have increased steadily over the last decade. Marijuana-related ED mentions increased nearly 200 percent from 1994 to 2002. Marijuana-related treatment admissions increased 100 percent during the same period.

NDIC Comment: The dramatic increases in marijuana-related ED mentions and treatment admissions often are viewed with concern, and while these increases may be attributable in part to the higher potency marijuana available today, this hypothesis has yet to be confirmed. Polydrug use and integrating treatment services in the disposition of minor cases of marijuana possession are two significant underlying factors to consider when assessing the consequences of marijuana use. Marijuana very often is used sequentially or concurrently with alcohol or other illicit drugs. In fact, only 28 percent of marijuana-related ED episodes in 2002 involved marijuana alone, so the presence of alcohol or other illicit drugs undoubtedly obscures the relevance of marijuana as a cause of many ED visits. Also, a rise in treatment referrals through the criminal justice system (such as through drug courts begun in the early 1990s) has contributed largely to the increase in marijuana-related treatment admissions. According to SAMHSA, treatment admissions referred by the criminal justice system were more likely to report marijuana as a primary substance of abuse than admissions referred by all other sources (24% vs. 10%). This is not to suggest that marijuana use is not harmful or that providing treatment as an alternative to arrest is a flawed policy, but these underlying factors do have bearing on analysis of marijuana's consequences.

Production

Domestic marijuana production appears to be increasing. Production estimates for the United States remain widely uncertain and there are as yet no agreed-upon trend data for comparison; however, law enforcement reporting indicates increasing cultivation throughout the country, noting in particular large-scale cultivation in the Pacific Region.

NDIC Comment: Contributing to increasing domestic marijuana production is the rising involvement of DTOs and criminal groups in large-scale cultivation operations in the United States. For example, U.S.-based Mexican DTOs control large outdoor operations in California and Oregon, and law enforcement reporting further indicates that these DTOs are increasingly involved in commercial indoor cultivation in California's Central Valley. The establishment of Mexican DTO-controlled operations in the United States has been documented for a few years, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service reports that at least five separate Mexican DTOs currently are linked with cultivation operations on California public lands. Reporting suggests that Mexican DTOs set up operations within the United States to avoid increased border security and higher transportation fees after September 11, 2001.

Transportation

The size of marijuana shipments smuggled from Canada into the United States has increased. Amounts smuggled overland across the Northern Border typically have ranged from personal use quantities to the 40- to 100-pound quantities carried in duffel bags; however, traffickers are increasingly transporting marijuana in private and commercial vehicles--for example, the trash trucks that frequently cross from Canada into Michigan--and overland shipments now are frequently 200 pounds or more. Also, marijuana shipments seized from noncommercial vessels and private aircraft in 2003 were two to three times larger than shipments seized from those transportation modes in previous years.

NDIC Comment: The increase in the size of marijuana shipments smuggled from Canada is due largely to the increasingly commercial nature of marijuana production in Canada, which the RCMP reports is now dominated by organized crime, most notably Hells Angels and Vietnamese criminal groups. Typical cultivation operations in British Columbia and Ontario involve residential homes of 2,000-plus square feet that are totally converted to the grow operation, and RCMP reports that multithousand-plant operations are no longer uncommon.

Distribution

Miami appears to have diminished in its role as a national-level Primary Market Area; however, the South Florida area remains a primary entry point for foreign-produced marijuana smuggled through the Caribbean and is emerging as a regional source of supply for domestic marijuana. Law enforcement reporting and seizure data indicate that Florida, particularly the southern portion of the state, continues to be a focal point for maritime smuggling of marijuana from source areas such as Colombia and Jamaica. But in the past few years, as seizures specifically at the Port of Miami have declined, reporting indicates that shipments are entering the state at various points along its Atlantic Coast, particularly from Miami to Port St. Lucie, and at the southern tip. Also, indoor cultivation in South Florida has increased to such an extent in recent years that locally produced, usually hydroponic, marijuana is supplying not only a strong local market (Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach Counties) but also markets out of state where it sells for a higher price.

NDIC Comment: Except for reporting from law enforcement in markets along the East Coast that has cited Miami as a significant source of marijuana to their areas, there is little quantifiable data to show national-level wholesale distribution of marijuana specifically from Miami. Moreover, law enforcement in Florida believes that much of the marijuana produced locally or smuggled into the state, through the Caribbean or overland from Mexico, is consumed locally and that distribution of foreign or local marijuana from the area is not as significant. This situation is unlike that in Primary Market Areas such as Phoenix/Tucson or Chicago, for example, where reporting indicates that as much as half or more of the marijuana transported to those areas is destined for other markets.

To Top     To Contents

Availability

Given the consensus reporting from federal, state, and local law enforcement and public health agencies over many years, marijuana's widespread and ready availability in the United States is certain; however, the amount available remains less so. Preliminary interagency estimates suggest that anywhere from 12,000 to 25,000 metric tons of marijuana, including domestic and foreign, were available in the United States in 2002, up from an estimated 10,000 to 24,000 metric tons in 2001. These estimates are speculative. While current estimates are not precise, these ranges nevertheless underscore the magnitude of marijuana's availability in the United States and indicate that the amount available is increasing.

All DEA Field Divisions and HIDTA offices report that marijuana is readily, widely, or the most available illicit drug in their areas. Reports of increased availability largely concerned higher potency or Canadian Bud (also referred to as BC (British Columbia) Bud) marijuana reported by Field Divisions and HIDTA offices whose jurisdictions include the northern half of the country. Such reporting likely implicates Canadian marijuana, although higher potency marijuana is produced domestically, particularly in the Pacific Region, and the term Canadian Bud has been used to identify any marijuana consisting of buds and is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the country of origin. Areas where increased marijuana availability was identified include Detroit, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Washington, New Hampshire, Vermont, Colorado, Utah, Montana, and Wyoming. There were no reports of a trend toward decreased availability, although DEA Newark attributed a recent shortage in marijuana supplies to law enforcement actions in late 2003.

NDTS 2004 data show that 97.8 percent of state and local law enforcement agencies describe the availability of marijuana as high or moderate, little deviating from the percentages reported for 2003 (98.2%) and 2002 (96.9%). The percentage of agencies reporting high or moderate availability in 2004 ranged narrowly from a low of 97.1 percent in the Southeast to a high of 99.5 percent in the West. Although law enforcement agencies throughout the country identify marijuana as the most prevalent illicit drug in their areas, few consider it a significant threat to public health and safety, hence its relatively low ranking as the greatest drug threat.

Another indication that marijuana's availability is not declining is that federal seizures of marijuana have increased slightly overall since 2001. As illustrated in Figure 25, however, while marijuana seizures have increased, the amounts seized over the 4-year period shown have not varied significantly, nor has the location of most federal seizures. FDSS data show that from 2000 to 2003, seizures in the four border states of Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico accounted for an average of 92 percent of all marijuana seized through incidents in which federal agencies participated. In 2004 seizures in Texas and Arizona alone accounted for 76 percent of total federal marijuana seizures.

Figure 25. Federal-wide drug seizures, marijuana,  U.S. and 4-state total for Texas-Arizona-California-New Mexico, in metric tons, 2000-2003.

d-link

Contrary to reports of increased availability and amounts seized, marijuana-related arrests have been declining, probably reflecting law enforcement's focus on more socially disruptive drugs, such as methamphetamine or crack, as well as the challenges posed by state and local laws inconsistent with federal laws governing marijuana. For example, the number of DEA arrests that involved marijuana declined overall from 7,096 in 2000 to 4,655 in 2003. At least 80 percent of DEA marijuana-related arrests in each year from 2000 through 2003 involved marijuana of foreign origin.

Potency levels reflect less the actual supply of marijuana available than they do the quality available. Thus the documented rise in marijuana potency (see Table 10) is more a factor of the availability of and demand for better quality marijuana. For example, according to data from the Potency Monitoring Project at the University of Mississippi, 23 percent of submitted samples tested at 9.0 percent THC or higher in 2002, compared with just 3 percent in 1994 (when some 900 more samples were tested than in 2002). The data below also illustrate that despite advances in cultivation techniques that make it possible to produce marijuana with THC levels of 20 to 30 percent, yields of this strength are not the rule, and high potency marijuana--whether sinsemilla from Canada or the United States--more typically tests between 10 and 15 percent THC.

Table 10. Average THC Concentration, Percentage by Year Confiscated, 1994-2002

Marijuana prices typically are not a strong indicator of the drug's availability. Wide-ranging prices, such as those shown in Table 11, which illustrates wholesale price ranges in some specific primary marijuana markets in 2001 and 2003, indicate the availability of marijuana of varying quality, from commercial-grade (domestic outdoor grown or Mexico-produced) to sinsemilla (domestic indoor grown or Canada-produced). Marijuana prices also are wide-ranging because of factors such as the buyer-seller relationship, the quantity purchased, the purchase frequency, and the market's distance to the source.

Table 11. Percentage of Past Year Use of Methamphetamine, by Population Density, 2003

To Top     To Contents

Demand

Demand is higher for marijuana than for any other illicit drug, and the constancy of this demand over time has ensured marijuana's ready availability and profitability. No less than 75 percent of illicit drug users in the United States aged 12 or older--an estimated 14.6 million persons--reported current use of marijuana in 2003. Such a sizable user population, encompassing persons of wide-ranging ages, both genders, and diverse origins residing in areas urban to rural, equates to steady profits. Past year marijuana use overall is relatively stable, generally showing modest, albeit not always significant, downward trends across most age groups. Conversely, the consequences of marijuana use seen in ED mentions and treatment admissions show no significant changes from year to year yet continue to rise steadily.

Predominant User Groups

MTF prevalence data in the chart below clearly depict the pattern of marijuana use as an arc across the age groups with peak use typically occurring from the late teens through the late twenties (see Figure 26). Although comprising a larger population and different age groups, NSDUH data indicate a similar pattern of the highest rates of use occurring among young adults and adolescents. Past year use was highest in 2003 for those aged 18 to 25 (28.5%), followed by those 12 to 17 (15.0%) and 26 or older (6.9%)

Figure 26. Rates of past year use, marijuana, 2000-2004.

Rates of Past Year Use for Marijuana, 2000-2004

d-link

Source: Monitoring the Future.

National drug prevalence data indicate that rates of marijuana use are generally higher among males, although the gender gap is relatively even between the sexes among younger users and widens as marijuana users age. MTF adolescent data for 2003 show past year use was 13.9 percent for males and 11.5 percent for females among eighth graders, 30.0 and 26.4 percent among tenth graders, and 37.8 and 31.6 percent among twelfth graders. According to 2003 MTF data regarding adults, 30.7 percent of males and 24.4 percent of females aged 19 to 30 reported past year marijuana use. Likewise, NSDUH data for 2003 indicate a narrow gender gap between rates of past year use for males and females aged 12 to 17 (15.3% and 14.6%, respectively) that widened among those aged 18 to 25 (33.0% and 24.0%) and 26 or older (9.2% and 4.7%).

Prevalence data further indicate that marijuana use is highest for Whites overall, particularly during years of peak use (late teens and early twenties). According to 2003 MTF data, while 19.1 percent of Hispanic eighth graders reported past year marijuana use compared with 13.0 and 12.6 percent of White and Black students, among older teens past year use was highest for Whites (30.6%), followed by Hispanics (28.8%) and Blacks (25.1%) in tenth grade; this pattern continued in twelfth grade with 37.9, 31.1, and 26.3 percent of Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks, respectively, reporting past year use. NSDUH 2003 data indicate that Whites were the primary marijuana users of these ethnic groups among adolescents and young adults as well. Among older adults, however, use among Blacks surpassed use among Whites (see Table 12).

Table 12. Percentage of Past Year Marijuana Use by Age Group, Origin, and Race, 2003

Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Marijuana is readily available across the country from large cities to small towns to rural areas; however, national prevalence data suggest that younger users have easier access to marijuana in less populated areas. According to 2003 MTF data, past year marijuana use was reported by 14.1 percent of eighth graders in Non-MSAs (areas having no town with a population of at least 50,000) compared with 11.5 percent of eighth graders in densely populated Large MSAs. This pattern was the same for tenth graders--higher reported use in Non-MSAs (29.0%) than Large MSAs (27.1%). Marijuana use started to shift by twelfth grade, however, when it was reported by slightly more students in Large MSAs (32.3%) than Non-MSAs (32.2%). Among adults aged 19 to 30, past year use was higher for those in a Very Large City than in Farm/Country areas (29.4% vs. 21.4%). NSDUH data also indicate higher reported marijuana use among young users in less populated areas and among adult users in urban areas. In 2003, 15.2 percent of adolescents in Non-Metro areas reported past year use compared with 14.4 percent in Large Metro areas. Among adults 26.9 percent of those aged 18 to 25 and 5.1 percent of those 26 or older in Non-Metro areas reported past year marijuana use compared with 28.4 and 7.4 percent, respectively, in Large Metro areas.

To Top     To Contents

Trends in Use

Marijuana use among eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders as well as college students has declined each year since peaking in the late 1990s; however, declines have not been substantial enough to diminish overall high levels of demand. In fact, despite the recent declines, the prevalence of marijuana use among these age groups was still considerably higher in 2003 than in 1991, before rates of use began to rise. Use among young adults increased overall since 1991, not peaking until 2002.

Figure 27 shows the general downward trend in adolescent use of marijuana. In fact, past year and current use for all three grades combined decreased nearly 11 percent from 2001 to 2003. The effects of an antimarijuana campaign launched in 2002 by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) may have bolstered overall declines in adolescent marijuana use, particularly reflected in the younger age groups as past year use decreased among eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders from 2001 to 2004. The latest NSDUH data show that the percentage of adolescents aged 12 to 17 reporting past year use of marijuana was 15.8 percent in 2002 and 15.0 percent in 2003.

Figure 27 also shows relatively stable use among adults in recent years; no changes recorded in MTF data for any adult age group, including college students through those aged 40, were statistically significant. According to the latest NSDUH data, the percentage of adults aged 18 to 25 reporting past year use of marijuana decreased from 2002 (29.8%) to 2003 (28.5%), while the percentages for those aged 26 or older were 7.0 and 6.9 percent in those years.

Figure 27. Percentage of past year marijuana use across age groups, 2000-2004.

d-link

Source: Monitoring the Future.

Perceptions of Use

Since 1991 the percentages of both adolescents and adults who perceive regular use of marijuana as harmful or who disapprove of smoking marijuana regularly have decreased overall, according to MTF data (see Figures 28 and 29). These data also effectively illustrate a pattern whereby the perception of risk or harm associated with marijuana use declines with age. Not insignificantly, this decline parallels the increase in marijuana use seen in older teens and young adults.

Figure 28. Trends in perceived harmfulness of marijuana, selected groups, 1992-2004.

Percentage saying there is "great risk" in smoking marijuana regularly.

d-link

Source: Monitoring the Future.

Figure 29. Trends in disapproval of marijuana use, selected groups, 1991-2004.

Percentage who "disapprove" or "strongly disapprove" of
smoking marijuana regularly.

d-link

Source: Monitoring the Future.

According to PATS data, the percentage of teens perceiving great risk in using marijuana regularly has been relatively stable over the past 4 years, with a range of 58 to 60 percent of sixth through twelfth graders reporting each year from 2000 to 2003. PATS data further indicate, however, that while nonusers of marijuana are much more likely to consider regular use as very risky (72% versus 25% for users), there have been recent declines in the proportions of both nonusers and noncurrent users who associate certain negative consequences (for example, dropping out of school or not getting into a good college) with marijuana use. Such declines suggest a relaxing of teens' attitudes toward marijuana, thus increasing their susceptibility to use of the drug.

Trends in Consequences of Use

Marijuana-related ED mentions and treatment admissions have continued to rise overall; however, a review of relevant data suggests that in recent years some consequences of marijuana use have trended downward. For example, while the total estimated number of ED mentions for marijuana increased significantly (23.9%) from 2000 to 2002, year-to-year increases during that time frame were statistically unchanged (see Figure 30). Also, more cities reported significant decreases than increases in marijuana-related ED mentions. ED mentions decreased significantly from 2000 to 2002 in Dallas (30.5%) and from 2001 to 2002 in Dallas (18.9%), Seattle (13.8%), Washington, D.C., (12.1%), and Chicago (11.5%). DAWN reporting cities with the steepest increases from 2000 to 2002 were Newark (75%) and St. Louis (62.6%); from 2001 to 2002 significant increases in ED marijuana mentions continued only in Newark (45.9%).

Figure 30. Marijuana-related emergency department mentions, estimated number, 1994-2002.

d-link

Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network.

TEDS data show that marijuana-related treatment admissions, too, have increased markedly over time--from 5.9 percent of all drug-related admissions in 1992 to 15.1 percent in 2002. The biggest upswing during that time frame occurred from 1992 (5.9%) to 1997 (12.3%), however, suggesting that the rise in the proportion of marijuana-related admissions to all drug admissions has slowed in later years.

ADAM data indicate that more adult male arrestees tested positive for marijuana than for any other drug and that the percentage increased overall between 2000 and 2003 from 40.9 to 44.1 percent. In 2003, 9 of 39 ADAM sites reported that 50 percent or more of adult male arrestees tested positive for marijuana compared with just 3 of 35 ADAM sites in 2000. Oklahoma City is the only ADAM site where more than half of male arrestees tested positive for marijuana each year from 2000 to 2003.

To Top     To Contents

Production

Marijuana production levels appear to be increasing despite continuing eradication efforts in this country and abroad. Law enforcement reporting and eradication data indicate increased cultivation in the United States, including increases in the size of large outdoor operations, often located on public lands and controlled by independent growers as well as U.S.-based Mexican DTOs, and in the number of small indoor operations, likely set up by various independent growers or criminal groups. Reporting particularly notes large-scale cultivation in the Pacific Region and increased indoor production in Florida as well as in many areas of the United States and Puerto Rico. Intensifying the situation are reports of increased production in Mexico and Canada. The United States is a significant consumer of the marijuana produced in these two neighboring source areas, where cultivation operations are largely the purview of major DTOs and organized crime.

Domestic Production

Estimating marijuana production has been acknowledged as an imprecise science; rough estimates based on available data and reasonable assumptions suggest that production in the United States could range from 6,000 to 19,000 metric tons annually. Most of this marijuana likely is produced outdoors, and considerable amounts are produced on public lands. One of the largest intelligence gaps in estimating domestic marijuana production concerns indoor cultivation. An accurate estimate of domestic indoor marijuana production remains infeasible largely because of the difficulty in detecting the operations and the lack of national data available. According to DEA, it is believed that state and local law enforcement agencies seize most indoor grow operations; thus, many go unreported to federal law enforcement.

The cultivation of cannabis plants in order to produce marijuana is extensive in certain areas, most notably in the Pacific and Southeast Regions, as evidenced by Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) data presented in Table 13. Both outdoor and indoor cultivation are common in the Pacific Region, where Hawaii is well known for the quality and quantity of marijuana produced outdoors, Washington and Oregon are principal source areas for top quality marijuana produced indoors, and California is a leading source area for marijuana produced in both outdoor and indoor grows. In the Southeast, outdoor cultivation is predominant. Tennessee and Kentucky are the principal source areas in this region. These areas of extensive cultivation notwithstanding, marijuana production remains a nationwide problem. There are few communities where cannabis is not cultivated for either distribution or personal use.

Table 13. Top Five States for Cannabis Eradication, 2003

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program.

To Top     To Contents

NDTS data show that state and local law enforcement agencies report the presence of indoor and outdoor cannabis cultivation almost equally. But as illustrated in Table 14, while percentages have been similar since 2002, indoor cultivation was reported by more agencies for the first time in 2004. Hydroponic cultivation, although reported far less than general indoor cultivation, also appears to have increased over the last few years, likely resulting from information shared among growers and hydroponic materiel accessible via the Internet and print media. Not surprisingly the Pacific Region, which includes central and northern California, as well as Washington and Oregon, had the highest percentage of agencies reporting both indoor and hydroponic cultivation (86.2% and 59.2%, respectively), while the Southeast Region, which includes Tennessee and Kentucky, had the highest percentage reporting outdoor cultivation (85.4%).

Table 14. Percentage of NDTS Respondents Reporting Methods of Cannabis Cultivation 2002-2004*

* Responses do not add to 100% because respondents could indicate more than one method.

A large portion of outdoor marijuana production in the United States occurs on the expansive yet secluded areas offered by public lands. As reported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, use of such lands also allows marijuana producers to avoid most of the asset forfeiture problems associated with private lands. National forests in California, collectively, and the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky, specifically, are the primary areas of cultivation (see Table 15). As was the case in 2002, 8 of the top 10 national forests for eradication in 2003 were in California, and 6 of the 8 California forests are located in the northern and central portions of the state. Public lands administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI) are no less vulnerable to marijuana producers seeking cultivation sites. Although eradication numbers have been consistently smaller than those for National Forest System (NFS) lands (refer to Table 15), reporting indicates that marijuana cultivation on DOI-administered lands has increased overall since the mid-1990s.

Table 15. Cannabis Plants Eradicated on Public Lands, 2000-2003

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior.

Producers of domestic marijuana are as varied as domestic cultivation operations, which range from outdoor plots to indoor grows, from a few plants grown for personal use (quality) to thousands mass-cultivated by DTOs or other criminal groups (quantity). Local independent growers or criminal groups producing marijuana typically reflect the general population of an area. For example, Cuban American producers normally are identified only in Florida, which has a large Cuban community. Accordingly, law enforcement reporting indicates that most marijuana producers across the country are Caucasians. DEA reports that producers of indoor-grown marijuana in particular are overwhelmingly Caucasians.

U.S.-based Mexican DTOs continue to control large outdoor cultivation operations in California, predominantly on public lands. In fact, five separate Mexican DTOs have been identified as operating on NFS lands in California, one of which has operations in seven forests covering land in nine counties. An increase in U.S.-based Mexican DTO-controlled cultivation operations in California's Central Valley has elevated marijuana production in that area to levels normally associated with counties in Northern California. More than 90 percent of the plants eradicated under the state's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (CAMP) program in Central Valley counties in 2003 are believed to have been produced in Mexican DTO-controlled operations. Such operations also have been identified on public lands in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Georgia, and Arkansas. Mexican DTOs usually employ undocumented aliens from Mexico or supply organization members to live in camps at grow sites and tend the plots.

To Top     To Contents

Foreign Production

Mexico has been the principal source area for U.S.-destined foreign marijuana for decades, and already high production levels escalated in 2003. An estimated 13,500 metric tons of marijuana were potentially produced in Mexico in 2003, 70 percent more than in the previous year. For perspective, annual marijuana production in Mexico, although rising steadily since 1999, averaged approximately 7,300 metric tons in the 4 years preceding.

Reportedly contributing to the escalated production in 2003 were favorable rainfall patterns in the western Sierra Madre Mountains,¹⁴ throughout which small cultivation plots are scattered to avoid detection and eradication of the plants. Mexican DTOs control nearly all marijuana production in Mexico, and despite increased drug use in that country in recent years, most of the marijuana produced is believed to be destined for markets in the United States. Given the steep increase in estimated production, it is not surprising that reporting from U.S. law enforcement continues to indicate that marijuana produced in Mexico is the most widely available type.

Current RCMP estimates of Canadian marijuana production are 800 to 2,000 metric tons. Seizure data and law enforcement reporting indicate that multiple metric tons of marijuana are smuggled from Canada into the United States annually. British Columbia has traditionally been the most prolific area for marijuana production; however, production in Ontario and Québec now appears to be at levels similar to those reported in British Columbia (see Table 16).

Table 16. Canadian Marijuana Seizures, 2003

Source: Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Organized crime is more extensively involved in marijuana production in Canada than in the United States. The RCMP reports that, in general, OMGs control most large-scale outdoor and indoor hydroponic (without soil) operations, while Asian, primarily Vietnamese, criminal groups dominate indoor organic (soil-based) operations. Both groups are prominent in provinces where marijuana is produced extensively, but Hells Angels OMG is likely dominant in Québec, where RCMP reports a trend toward outdoor grows. More revealing, however, is that Vietnamese criminal groups appear poised to be the dominant indoor marijuana producers in many of Canada's largest cities. According to one report, Vietnamese criminal groups already run nearly every sizable indoor cultivation operation in Vancouver and Toronto, and they are becoming increasingly competitive in Montreal and in the Calgary area.

Marijuana production in Colombia continues to be reported at 4,150 metric tons, a figure reported every year since 1996. The principal drug-producing regions in Colombia lie in the south central portion of the country, where well-established Colombian DTOs and, to some extent, terrorist insurgent groups likely control marijuana production.

Potential marijuana production has not even been reported since 1997 for Jamaica, where drug traffickers traditionally have paid local farmers to plant and harvest cannabis for distribution in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Marijuana continues to be produced to some extent in Jamaica and shipments continue to be detected departing Jamaica; however, reporting indicates that marijuana from Jamaica has largely been displaced from these traditional export markets by the high quality marijuana produced locally in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Jamaica does remain the principal source area of hash oil smuggled to Canada, some of which transits the United States en route.

To Top     To Contents

Transportation

The transportation of marijuana from foreign source areas to the United States, as well as the transportation of foreign and domestic marijuana within the United States, occurs overwhelmingly by land. Transportation also occurs by sea and air; however, smugglers continue to exploit the breadth of U.S. land borders with Mexico and Canada, transporting huge amounts of marijuana via official border checkpoints as well as countless unofficial crossing points. Moreover, law enforcement reporting indicates that marijuana smuggling across the Southwest and Northern Borders is increasing.

Transporters of marijuana include DTOs, criminal groups, gangs, and independent smugglers and encompass many racial and ethnic groups. Mexican DTOs and criminal groups and Jamaican criminal groups are the prominent smugglers and transporters of marijuana from Mexico. Vietnamese and Chinese criminal groups and Caucasian traffickers are the primary transporters of marijuana from Canada. Other transporters identified include Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans, street gangs such as Latin Kings and Ñeta, and OMGs such as Hells Angels and Gypsy Jokers.

To the United States

Marijuana smuggling into the United States via its borders with Mexico and Canada appears to have increased overall; however, the volume of marijuana seized along the Southwest Border dwarfs Northern Border amounts (see Table 17). The increase in seizures along the Northern Border is likely the result of not only increased marijuana production in and smuggling from Canada but also increased law enforcement efforts along that border and the improved capture of data relating to Northern Border seizures.

Table 17. U.S. Arrival Zone Seizures, Marijuana in Kilograms, 2001-2003*

Source: El Paso Intelligence Center.
* Numbers are rounded.

Law enforcement reporting and seizure data indicate that most of the marijuana smuggled across the Southwest Border is transported by Mexican DTOs and criminal groups through and between POEs primarily in Texas and Arizona, followed by California and New Mexico. Cross-border overland modes of transportation are primarily private and commercial vehicles such as privately owned or rental cars and tractor-trailers. Recreational vehicles, buses, and trains are used as well. Other cross-border transport methods used include mail and express mail services as well as couriers. Couriers hike marijuana through remote areas, walk it through tunnels dug under the border, wade across border waterways with marijuana-laden rafts, or transport the drug on horseback.

EPIC seizure data show that the POEs accounting for most of the marijuana seized along the Southwest Border over the last 3 years are El Paso and Laredo in Texas and San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Calexico in California. Approximately 80 percent of the marijuana seized at Southwest Border POEs each year from 2001 to 2003 was seized at these five POEs. The counties accounting for most of the marijuana seized between Southwest POEs from 2001 through 2003 are Pima and Santa Cruz Counties in Arizona. The Texas counties of Starr and Hidalgo followed in 2001 and 2002, Zapata County in 2003. Between 50 and 60 percent of the marijuana seized between Southwest Border POEs each year from 2001 to 2003 was seized in these counties. Amounts seized in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties increased each consecutive year as law enforcement agencies along the Arizona-Mexico border reported an increase in marijuana trafficking (see Table 18).

Table 18. Principal Ports of Entry/Counties for Marijuana Seizures Along Southwest Border, 2003

Source: El Paso Intelligence Center.

Law enforcement reporting and seizure data indicate that most of the marijuana smuggled across the Northern Border is transported by OMGs such as Hells Angels, Vietnamese and Chinese criminal groups, and Caucasian, Native American, and Indian transporters through and between POEs primarily in Washington, followed by Michigan and New York. Cross-border overland means of transportation are primarily private and commercial vehicles. Recreational vehicles, buses, snowmobiles, and motorcycles also have been used. Other cross-border transport methods used include watercraft, aircraft (including airdrops), and couriers on foot.

EPIC seizure data show that the POEs accounting for most of the marijuana seized along the Northern Border over the last 3 years are Blaine and Sumas in Washington. More than 50 percent of the marijuana seized at Northern Border POEs each year from 2001 to 2003 was seized at these two POEs. The counties accounting for most of the marijuana seized between POEs from 2001 through 2003 are Whatcom and Okanogan Counties in Washington. More than 70 percent, on average, of the marijuana seized between Northern Border POEs each year from 2001 to 2003 was seized in these two counties (see Table 19).

Table 19. Principal Ports of Entry/Counties for Marijuana Seizures Along Northern Border, 2003

Source: El Paso Intelligence Center.

To Top     To Contents

Looking at seizure data in terms of volume does portray the scale of marijuana smuggling across the Washington-British Columbia border, but this approach fails to illustrate the eastward expansion of marijuana smuggling across the Northern Border. Marijuana is now commonly smuggled into Michigan and New York as well as Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and Vermont. Marijuana seizures have escalated, particularly in Michigan, where amounts seized increased 1,800 percent from 2001 to 2003. For perspective, however, it is important to remember that just one routine shipment seized on the Southwest Border can equal total annual seizures in Michigan or in Washington (approximately 2,200 kg and 7,020 kg, respectively, in 2003).

Marijuana smuggling by sea occurs far less than by land. Seizures from commercial and noncommercial vessels were relatively even in 2003 following declines in commercial seizures and increases in noncommercial seizures in the preceding 2 years. Commercial maritime seizures dropped steadily from 22,574 kilograms in 2001 to 9,471 kilograms in 2003, driven largely by an 86 percent decline in seizures in Miami over that period. Because most commercial maritime marijuana seizures involve containerized cargo, which is difficult to interdict without benefit of prior intelligence, such seizures are often sporadic, and the decline in commercial maritime seizures, such as in Miami, likely does not correlate with decreased use of commercial maritime means to smuggle marijuana. Indeed, Florida remains a prominent entry point for marijuana smuggled into the country from Jamaica, Colombia, and Mexico. EPIC seizure data show that the POEs accounting for most of the marijuana seized from commercial vessels over the last 3 years are primarily in Florida (Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Tampa). POEs in South Carolina (Charleston, Wando), and New Jersey (Gloucester City, Port Elizabeth, Newark) followed.

Law enforcement and intelligence reporting indicate that the use of noncommercial vessels to smuggle marijuana is increasing and is a particularly common method along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of Florida, around South Padre Island in Texas, in the San Juan Islands in Washington, and on the St. Lawrence River between New York and Ontario. EPIC seizure data show that marijuana seizures from noncommercial vessels increased overall from 5,539 kilograms in 2001 to 9,660 kilograms in 2003. Seizures occurred most often in Florida (Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach, Broward, and Orange Counties), Texas (Cameron, Willacy, and Nueces Counties), and Washington (San Juan, Whatcom, and Skagit Counties). Of note, shipments seized from noncommercial vessels in Washington in 2003 were two to three times larger than in 2001.

Marijuana smuggling by air appears to be the least used method. Commercial air seizures have been relatively consistent and low over the last 3 years, while seizures from private aircraft, typically low as well, have dropped precipitously. Commercial air seizures held relatively steady from 2001 to 2003, declining less than 3 percent overall during that period (2,352 kg to 2,291 kg). According to EPIC seizure data, the POE accounting for most of the marijuana seized from commercial air over the last 3 years is New York. POEs in the U.S. interior--Memphis, Cincinnati, and Louisville (all hubs for major commercial express mail services)--collectively accounted for the next highest amount, and seizures at these POEs have trended upward. Other POEs for commercial air marijuana seizures were in the border states of Florida (Miami, Fort Lauderdale), California (Los Angeles), and Texas (El Paso, Guthrie, San Antonio).