Marijuana in the "Third World": Appalachia, U.S.A. 9781685852757

Citation preview

•

•

•

MARIJUANA IN THE "THIRD W O R L D "

STUDIES O N THE IMPACT OF THE ILLEGAL D R U G T R A D E

LaMond Tullis, Series Editor

•

•

•

A Project of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) and the United Nations University (UNU)

Volume 1

Bolivia and Coca: A Study in Dependency, James Painter

Volume 2

Political Economy and Illegal Drugs in Colombia, Francisco E. Thoumi

Volume 3

Mexico's "War" on Drugs: Causes and Maria Celia Toro

Volume 4

Unintended Consequences: Illegal Drugs and Drug Policies in Nine Countries, LaMond Tullis

Volume 5

Marijuana in the "Third World": Appalachia, Richard R. Clayton

Volume 6

The Burmese Connection: Illegal Drugs in the Colden Triangle, Ronald Renard

Consequences,

U.S.A.,

MARIJUANA IN THE "THIRD WORLD'' •

•

•

Appalachia, U.S.A.

Richard R. Clayton

LYN NE RIENNER PUBLISHERS BOULDER L O N D O N

Published in the United States of America in 1995 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301 and in the United Kingdom by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, L o n d o n WC2E 8LU © 1995 by the United Nations University and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. All rights reserved by the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Clayton, Richard R. Marijuana in the "Third World" : Appalachia, U.S.A. / by Richard R. Clayton. p. cm.—(Studies on the impact of the illegal d r u g trade; v. 5) "Book p r e p a r e d for the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, Switzerland, a n d the United Nations University, Tokyo." Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-55587-553-X (he : alk. paper) 1. Marijuana—Government policy—Kentucky. 2. Marijuana industry— Government policy—Kentucky. 3. Marijuana—Law and legislation— Kentucky. 4. Kentucky—Economic conditions. 5. Kentucky—Social conditions. I. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. II. United Nations University. III. Title. IV. Series. HV5831.K4C53 1995 338.1 '7379'09769—dc20 95-17942 CIP British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available f r o m the British Library.

Distributed in J a p a n a n d Southeast Asia by: T h e United Nations University Press T h e United Nations University 53-70, J i n g u m a e 5-chome Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150 ISBN 92-808-0892-3

Printed and b o u n d in the United States of America @

T h e paper used in this publication meets the r e q u i r e m e n t s of the American National Standard for P e r m a n e n c e of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1984. 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

List of Illustrations Foreword, L a M o n d Tullis 1

VII IX

T h e P r o b l e m of Marijuana Cultivation and Production in the U n i t e d States

1

A Historical Perspective, 1 Purpose and Overview, 3 2

5

Marijuana: T h e Plant History, 5 Physical Characteristics, 10 Cultivation, 11

3

Cultivation a n d P r o d u c t i o n of Marijuana in the U n i t e d States

13

Marijuana and the Public-Policy Agenda, 13 Amounts of Marijuana Produced, 14 Eradication Efforts, 22 Sinsemilla and the Price of Marijuana, 34 Size of the Market, 37 Consumption Data, 38 4

Appalachia and Kentucky: A Historical and Cultural C o n t e x t

45

Definitions of Appalachia, 45 The Real Appalachia, 47 Major Areas of Change in Appalachia, 1870-1930, 50 Modernization and Industrialization, 53 Appalachia in a Postindustrial World, 57 5

Marijuana Cultivation a n d P r o d u c t i o n in Kentucky The Data, 63 A Problem Embedded in Poverty, 69 v

63

vi .

• . CONTENTS Contextual Variables: Correlation with Marijuana Eradicated, 70 Regression Analysis of Marijuana Eradicated, 74 Conclusions, 76

6

C o n s e q u e n c e s of Marijuana Cultivation a n d Production in Kentucky

79

Consequences of Marijuana Use: The Literature, 79 Kentucky: A Case Study, 80 Conclusions, 93 7

Policy Implications of Marijuana Cultivation and Production in the U n i t e d States

95

Emphasis on Supply Reduction of Cocaine, Crack, and Heroin, 95 Supply-Reduction Measures, 97 Demand-Reduction Measures, 102 Making Prohibition of Marijuana Work, 109 A Problem Embedded in Poverty, 110 The Bottom Line(s) for Marijuana Policies, 111 References Index About the Book and Author About the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) and the United Nations University (UNU)

113 117 121 123

Illustrations • •• Tables 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2

Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program Total Statistics, 1988-1991 Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program Statistics, 1990 Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program Statistics, 1991 Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program Statistics, 1992 Total Plants and Ditchweed Eradicated, 1991-1992: Top 10 States Cultivated Marijuana and Sinsemilla Marijuana Plants Eradicated, 1991-1992: Top 25 States Indoor Marijuana Plants Eradicated by State, 1991-1992 Funds Allocated to States for Marijuana Eradication, 1991-1992 Arrests Made, Weapons Confiscated, and Assets Seized, 1991-1992 Sinsemilla Plants Destroyed, 1990-1992 Percent Delta-9 T H C Content Domestic Marijuana Selling Prices per Pound Marijuana Use: 1988 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Marijuana Consumed in 1988 Per Capita Income in Appalachia as a Percentage of the National Average Appalachia's Ten Wealthiest Counties, 1989 Appalachia's Ten Poorest Counties, 1989 Marijuana Plants Eradicated in Kentucky by County, 1990, 1991, 1993 Correlations (Pearson's r) of Predictor Variables with Marijuana Eradicated in Appalachian Kentucky Counties, 1990, 1991, 1993 vii

18 24 26 28 30 31 31 32 33 35 35 36 39 41 58 59 59 66

72

viii

6.1 6.2 7.1

7.2 7.3

• • • ILLUSTRATIONS

Percentage Reporting D e p e n d e n c e Problems in the Past Year Attributed to Use of Marijuana Comparative Homicide Rates, 1980-1989 Lifetime, Past-Year, and Past-Month Use of Marijuana Among National Samples of High School Seniors, 1975-1993 Alcohol Prohibition Status for Appalachian and Non-Appalachian Kentucky Counties Trends in C u r r e n t (Past-Month) Use of Marijuana by Age Group in the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1972-1993

81 90

105 108

109

Maps 4.1 5.1

Appalachian Regional Commission Region Appalachian Counties in Kentucky

48 71

Foreword LaMond Tullís

Cannabis—the agricultural precursor for marijuana, hashish, hashish oil, and other substances—is grown in virtually every country. It can adapt to an extraordinary range of temperatures and rainfall, and it prospers in artificial greenhouses. It has a long history of use—some historians claim more than six thousand years—as h e m p for cordage, substance for medicinal applications, and artifact for social and religious rituals. Currently, millions of people worldwide have sampled its psychotropic essence, some becoming chronic patrons. In terms of its effects on morbidity (illness) and mortality (death), marijuana seems to be relatively less d a n g e r o u s than tobacco products. However, it is psychoactive and has been associated with public-safety c o n c e r n s (e.g., c o n s u m p t i o n by train engineers and airline pilots). Its use is generally legally proscribed, although sanctions vary widely f r o m c o u n t r y to country, ranging f r o m harsh p u n i s h m e n t to official tolerance. Richard Clayton has marshaled an impressive array of data about marijuana production and use in the United States, d e m o n s t r a t i n g that this nation is not just a consuming but also a producing country. He shows that marijuana cultivation and production here are not a simple problem but rather have d e e p roots in history, culture, economy, and national integration. Marijuana production in the United States, as the author's focus on Appalachian Kentucky shows, has socioeconomic correlates similar to other underdeveloped regions around the world that specialize in the production of illegal drugs such as marijuana, opium, and cocaine: pockets of relative socioeconomic deprivation, whether deriving from exploitative national economic integration, d e m o g r a p h i c pressures on the land, b o o m and bust regional economies, or regional standoffs with national governments. Above all, the author argues, it is a problem e m b e d d e d in poverty. Appalachian Kentucky, following European Americans' westward expansion, was characterized by "strong family ties, a localistic rather ix

x • • • FOREWORD than a cosmopolitan orientation, a diverse agricultural base designed to facilitate strong work habits, and a basic faith in the individual's f r e e d o m and i n d e p e n d e n c e to pursue things that are time-honored and right for the family. T h e r e was a pervasive reverence for the land, and the ties to it ran deep into the Appalachian mountaineers' psyche" (p. 52). T h a t was n o t m u c h d i f f e r e n t than the f o u n d a t i o n ethos associated with many f r o n t i e r settlements. But industrial interests' exploitation of the land and its resources, first by rail transportation and then by timber extraction and coal mining, all of which were associated with boom and bust cycles of dizzying magnitudes, left their mark: timberless, eroded land; open mining pits with leaching, caustic byproducts; selective outmigration of the population; and, after a century or more, conflicts between urban and rural settlements and a dispirited population. Now, "more than a century of exploitation (by industries and governments), loss (of their land, potential income, and jobs), and chronic and crushing poverty have produced a pervasive sense of hopelessness about the future, an alienation and cynical attitude a b o u t the present, and a willingness to d o what is necessary to get by" (p. 61). T h e marijuana industry has grown and flourished on this social base of regional economic integration. Appalachia's ethnic and cultural heritage thus results less f r o m its isolation from the larger United States and its economic transformations than f r o m its historical integration. Industrial capitalism at its worst helped to form the c u r r e n t Appalachia. Grassroots capitalism at its worst—an u n d e r g r o u n d economy rife with fear, official corr u p t i o n , and violence sustained by illegal p r o d u c t s such as marijuana—is not a very surprising consequence. In a final chapter on public-policy implications, Clayton explores the virtues and pitfalls of various options, concluding that the elimination of poverty in Appalachia is the strongest candidate for the elimination of the u n d e r g r o u n d economy in illegal drugs there. The author makes no pretense that this would solve U.S. marijuana problems (production could well find other hospitable sites characterized by similar socioeconomic factors). A substantial reduction of poverty, however, could have a salutary socioeconomic impact on that region and also help to lift it from illegal trade. In no other volume will readers handily find the array of quantitative data and interpretive information about marijuana production and c o n s u m p t i o n and their consequences as in Marijuana in the "Third World": Appalachia, U.S.A. No other region of the world where illegal drugs are grown has made equivalent data available. Clayton's volume is one of the best to offer a quantitative and interpretive

FOREWORD . . . xi social-science window on illegal d r u g production and consumption and their consequences. Marijuana in the "Third World": Appalachia, U.S.A. is part of a multicountry study of the socioeconomic and political impact of production, trade, and use of illicit narcotic drugs. T h e project has been sponsored by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Develo p m e n t (UNRISD), the United Nations University (UNU), and Brigham Young University (BYU). T h e project has been developed in two phases. T h e first was a review m o n o g r a p h and a n n o t a t e d bibliography entitled Handbook of Research on the Illicit Drug Traffic: Socioeconomic and Political Consequences (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press), issued in 1991. T h e second phase is a series of country-specific m o n o g r a p h s — L y n n e Rienner Publishers' series Studies on the Impact of the Illegal Drug Trade—that both describe and analyze the interplay of economics, politics, society, and illicit d r u g s and drugcontrol policies t h r o u g h a careful analysis of causes and consequences of production, trade, consumption, and control. Since the early 1980s, the national and international traffic in and consumption of cannabis, opiate, and coca derivatives has exploded; it is perhaps beginning to taper off in the United States but is vigorously expanding in Western and Central Europe and the republics of the f o r m e r Soviet Union. Consumption has also rapidly increased in the principal " p r o d u c e r countries" (e.g., Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, M y a n m a r / B u r m a , and Afghanistan). T h e socioeconomic and political costs of c o n s u m p t i o n and efforts to suppress it have m o u n t e d . Unfortunately, policy initiatives to reduce those costs have in the worst cases simply aggravated the problem, and in the best cases have apparently had only marginal impact. Although the literature on illicit drugs has rapidly e x p a n d e d in recent years, most of it has focused on problems of consumption and control in major industrialized countries. Less attention has been paid to the impact of p r o d u c t i o n , trade, and c o n s u m p t i o n of illicit drugs and international control policies in developing countries and regions. This is highly u n f o r t u n a t e because until recently most illicitd r u g - c o n t r o l initiatives have c o n c e n t r a t e d on supply-reduction efforts in those areas. In the wake of a general failure of these strategies to control consumption anywhere (indeed, they may have served to e x p a n d it), a strong shift is now expected in international drugcontrol efforts. T h e purpose of the country studies in this series is to expand the level of information and awareness about costs and consequences of the p r e s e n t policies and to consider the implications of p r o f f e r e d

xi i

FOREWORD

new solutions for developing areas. We desire to contribute to an enhanced quality of policy-review discussions by bringing together historical and contemporary information and careful analyses regarding specific countries. Richard R. Clayton's book makes a substantial contribution to this effort. LaMond Tullís

1 The Problem of Marijuana Cultivation and Production in the United States

A Historical Perspective A great deal of what is known about drugs and drug abuse in the United States concerns epidemiology (who is using which drugs with what consequences) and etiology (the predictors and risk factors that account for initiation, continuation, progression within and across classes of drugs, regression, cessation, and relapse). Most of this knowledge about drugs and drug abuse has emerged since the founding of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in 1974. From the mid-1970s to the early 1980s NIDA had an active research program focused on marijuana. Marijuana was widely used and was, among recently popular drugs, the only one produced in commercial quantities in the United States. When the 1980s epidemic of cocaine, and later crack, use arrived, however, marijuana appeared to take a back seat to these new and seemingly more dangerous drugs imported from abroad. T h e word dangerous is, of course, a relative term. Much of the early interest in marijuana occurred because of the focus on it by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (1972) and because the early epidemiologic surveys of young people in the United States were conducted in the mid- to late 1970s, a time when marijuana use among young people in the United States was at its peak. There is evidence that there was a marijuana epidemic that spread rapidly through the general population in the United States beginning in about 1965 (O'Donnell et al. 1976) and continuing through the late 1970s and early 1980s (Johnston 1991). 1

2

• • • MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

In terms of its effects on morbidity and mortality, marijuana, and for that matter heroin and cocaine, seem to be less dangerous than tobacco p r o d u c t s (nicotine) and alcoholic beverages (Gold 1989). But while marijuana is usually thought of as less h a r m f u l or dangerous than heroin, cocaine, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco products, it is a very interesting drug. It meets the most widely cited criteria for drugs of d e p e n d e n c e , according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (rev. 1987). First, it is psychoactive. There are specific receptor sites in the brain that measure and monitor the a m o u n t of marijuana's psychoactive ingredients in the bloodstream. Second, it is a euphoriant: It produces predictable effects that are sought after because they make the user feel better. Third, marijuana is reinforcing in several ways. T h e principal psychoactive ingredient it contains reaches the brain within seconds after the user inhales. Marijuana is also reinforcing in that its use is associated with setting: When users are in those settings, they are rem i n d e d of marijuana use. Fourth, tolerance occurs with m a r i j u a n a use; the user must increase doses to get the same effect. Fifth, there are prototypical withdrawal effects. Most people do not consider marijuana addictive or dependenceproducing. T h e prevailing opinion is that the use of marijuana is probably less h a r m f u l than smoking cigarettes or drinking alcoholic beverages. When people smoke marijuana, they are less likely to be aggressive or hostile than when they are drinking excessively. In addition, no one appears to die f r o m using marijuana. T h e same cannot be said of o t h e r drugs such as heroin, cocaine, crack, alcohol, and cigarettes. Because of its historical coincidence with the passage of the baby boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1962) through adolescence and the e m e r g e n c e of the marijuana epidemic in the general population of the United States, many people associate marij u a n a use with adolescent "acting out," which most people seem to outgrow when they accept adult roles. It is thus seen primarily as a behavior a n c h o r e d in the developmental life cycle somewhere between early adolescence and early adulthood. T h e scientific a n d p o p u l a r literature in the United States has been dominated by a concern about use and abuse of various drugs and the consequences of such use and abuse. T h e collective selfimage of the United States is as a consuming country. This is a country with a seemingly insatiable appetite and d e m a n d for illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. H e r o i n and cocaine are clearly p r o d u c e d in o t h e r countries. Until the early 1970s, almost all of the marijuana c o n s u m e d in the United States was also p r o d u c e d in other countries such as Mexico,

THE PROBLEM OF MARIJUANA IN THE U.S. . . .

3

Jamaica, and Colombia. In the early 1970s, however, the vast a m o u n t of U.S. dollars flooding across the U.S.-Mexican b o r d e r to buy marij u a n a were creating a very unstable e n v i r o n m e n t for the Mexican peso. In an e f f o r t to restabilize the Mexican currency, a j o i n t decision was made to shut off the flow of dollars to Mexico for marij u a n a . President Nixon implemented what is now known as the first Operation Intercept (Inciardi 1992). All vehicles and persons crossing the U.S.-Mexican b o r d e r were subjected to the maximum intervention (inspection) for drug-interdiction purposes. Operation Intercept was active for a period of a b o u t t h r e e months. T h e visible effect of this policy was immediate. T h e lines of vehicles attempting to cross the b o r d e r backed u p for miles. T h e policy also had two major, not-so-visible effects: T h e Mexican currency stabilized and a domestic marijuana cultivation and production business emerged in the United States In the years since the collapse of Operation Intercept, the nature and extent of drug use and abuse in the United States have changed dramatically. So has the extent of marijuana cultivation and production. With so much attention focused on the m o r e visible drugs— heroin, cocaine, and crack—marijuana has been quietly ignored.

Purpose and Overview T h e purpose of this book is to explore the nature and extent of the cultivation and production of marijuana in the United States and to explore some of the associated socioeconomic and political consequences. This will involve examination of data at the state (Kentucky), regional (Appalachia), and national (all states) levels. Kentucky has 120 counties, 49 of which are located in central Appalachia. We will examine data across all counties within Kentucky and then within the 49 Appalachian counties. We will then explore several policy implications of the widespread cultivation and production of marijuana in the United States and the socioeconomic and political consequences associated with this agricultural commodity. We will critically e x a m i n e statistics on the n u m b e r and types of marijuana plants eradicated and destroyed in the United States, as well as data on marijuana consumption, to see if these figures can be used to g e n e r a t e credible estimates of how much marijuana is produced in the United States. We will then use these data to show that the estimate by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) of 4,600 metric tons of domestic marijuana p r o d u c e d in 1988 is seriously inflated. The most i m p o r t a n t o u t c o m e of these analyses is to show that the United States is not just a consuming country but also

4

• • • MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

a drug-producing country. In Chapter 3, we will show that 95 percent of the marijuana reported destroyed in the United States has little or no commercial value. F u r t h e r m o r e , 80 percent or more of the cultivated marijuana grown in the United States is f o u n d in just six states. Kentucky is a leading state for marijuana production. Marijuana cultivation a n d p r o d u c t i o n do not occur in a social, historical, and cultural vacuum. In C h a p t e r 4, we will e x a m i n e the development and exploitation of the Appalachian region of the United States. This is a land traditionally rich in natural resources, inhabited by p o o r people, and a region that has experienced b o o m and bust cycles in the timber a n d logging industry as well as in the coal industry. It is a region o f t e n t h o u g h t of as isolated within the country, a region that in many ways resembles a developing country. In C h a p t e r 5, we focus attention on marijuana cultivation a n d production in Kentucky and in the 49 counties within Kentucky classified as Appalachian. We will make correlational and other analyses of these counties in an a t t e m p t to u n d e r s t a n d why marijuana production is such a growth industry in this poorest part of a p o o r region. T h e answer is actually quite clear: Marijuana cultivation a n d production in Appalachian Kentucky seem to be e m b e d d e d in a culture of poverty. In Chapter 6, we will attempt to come even closer to the roots of the p r o b l e m of m a r i j u a n a growing in Appalachian Kentucky as rep o r t e d by the people who live in the region, some of whom are involved in the marijuana business, all of whom are affected by it in some way. We will identify and discuss some of the clear consequences of marijuana cultivation and production. O n e thing, above all, stands out: Marijuana cultivation and production is not a simple problem. It is a complex issue with d e e p roots in the history and culture of the poor and p r o u d people who live in this rich but scarred land. In Chapter 7, we will attempt to put the cultivation and production of marijuana in the United States in a public-policy context. Simple solutions never suffice when the problem is complex. T h e policy options are not limited to prohibition versus regulation (legalization). Instead, the p r o p e r public-policy approach to marijuana production may be a broader, m o r e comprehensive, and longer-term attempt to eliminate chronic poverty in all its dimensions.

•

•

•

2 A I M

•

•

Marijuana: The Plant

T h e Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus is c r e d i t e d with n a m i n g marij u a n a in 1753. Its scientific name, Cannabis sativa, is s o m e t i m e s followed by a capital L to r e f e r back to him ( G r i n s p o o n 1977; Merlin 1972). T h e r e are a n u m b e r of varieties of m a r i j u a n a plant, a l t h o u g h all seem to b e l o n g to the same species. Significant d i f f e r e n c e s exist, however, a m o n g the varieties of marijuana plants with r e g a r d to b o t h physical a p p e a r a n c e a n d potency. T h e t h r e e most p r o m i n e n t varieties are Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, a n d h e m p . Cannabis sativa usually ranges in h e i g h t f r o m 5 or 6 f e e t to 18 feet. Its leaves are long a n d narrow a n d its b r a n c h e s are n o t thickly b u n c h e d . T h e leaves are light green in color. Cannabis indica is m u c h smaller t h a n Cannabis sativa, with a height of only about 4 to 5 feet. T h e b r a n c h e s are m u c h m o r e densely packed a n d the leaves are both shorter and wider. T h e leaves are dark green, almost blue in some cases with somewhat of a p u r p l e tint. H e m p plants grow wild in many areas of the U n i t e d States, particularly in t h e m i d w e s t e r n states. T h e c o m m o n n a m e f o r these plants, some of which reach a height of 12 f e e t a n d will grow almost anywhere, is "ditchweed." H e m p has a low p o t e n c y a n d thus is n o t very attractive as a c o m m e r c i a l p r o d u c t . It is generally t h o u g h t that the only p e o p l e who would harvest d i t c h w e e d m i g h t be y o u n g people who d o n o t habitually smoke m a r i j u a n a a n d who have n o t tried the stronger, m o r e p o t e n t varieties. From a legal s t a n d p o i n t , there is n o d i f f e r e n c e between growing a n d h a r v e s t i n g ditchweed a n d growing t h e s t r o n g e r varieties. However, growers who are heavily involved in the growing process d o n o t like ditchweed because it can pollinate their special stock a n d r u i n it. History Marijuana has been a r o u n d for centuries and n o o n e is really certain of its origins. Most believe, however, that the plant originated somewhere 5

6 • • • MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

in western China or central Asia (Merlin 1972; National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse 1972): "The plant has been grown for fiber and as a source of medicine for several thousand years, but until 500 a.d. its use as a mind-altering d r u g was almost solely confined in India" (National Commission 1972:3). Marijuana as a Source of Fiber According to Grinspoon (1977), the Jamestown settlers b r o u g h t h e m p to America in 1611 and cultivated it for its fiber. There is no record, however, of the Pilgrims bringing h e m p with them in 1620. King James I ordered the early settlers to produce h e m p for export to England, where its importance for cloth and rope had long been recognized. H e m p was a major crop from the earliest colonial days until the Civil War. According to Breecher (1972), h e m p was so important to the economy of some states that rewards were offered for high production; punishments or penalties were imposed for those who did not produce hemp. Rosevar (1967) estimated that by 1630 close to half of all the winter clothing and almost all of the summer clothing worn by the colonists was made from h e m p fibers. Andrews and Vinkenoog (1967) report that George Washington grew h e m p at Mount Vernon, primarily for fiber. It is also reported, however, that he was interested in separating the male plants from the female before pollination, presumably to increase their potency. This suggests that George Washington may have been growing h e m p for other purposes, perhaps its presumed medicinal qualities. Weisheit notes that "the first paper and the first cloth were probably made from h e m p fibers. Until 1883, somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of all paper in the world was made from h e m p fiber, including the paper used to print the Gutenberg Bible and the first two drafts of the Declaration of I n d e p e n d e n c e " (1992:11). Herer also notes many of the other uses of h e m p fiber (for example, nearly all ships' sails, rigging, anchor ropes, cargo and fishermen's nets, flags, shrouds, and the sealants used to prevent salt water from corroding the ships). Simply put, h e m p was used in a number of important ways in American life prior to the twentieth century. Weisheit, using Breecher as a primary source, says the following about h e m p production in Kentucky: "By the 1800s the center of h e m p production was Kentucky, where roads were built and slaves traded as part of the h e m p industry, but the plant was used almost entirely for the manufacture of cloth and rope. Following the Civil War, production declined as cheaper imported h e m p was available and as the invention of the cotton gin and cotton and wool machinery

MARIJUANA: THE PLANT

. . .

7

m a d e these fabrics c h e a p e r alternatives to h e m p for making cloth" (1992:15). From approximately 1900 to 1935, a n u m b e r of events and forces in American society focused on recreational uses of marijuana and their consequences, leading to passage of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. This act classified m a r i j u a n a as a narcotic and placed it u n d e r the same type of controls placed on opium and coca products u n d e r the 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act. T h e r e was a brief respite from such controls during World War II. The ban on marijuana was lifted from 1942 through 1945 when the Japanese cut off U.S. supplies of h e m p a n d other fiber from the Philippines. Farmers in the United States, particularly those f r o m the Midwest, were e n c o u r a g e d to grow "Hemp for Victory." In fact, the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture provided seeds, fertilizer, machines, and planting instructions to help farmers in Kentucky and Tennessee grow h e m p for seed stock, and f a r m e r s in the Midwest—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Wisconsin—grow h e m p for fiber. According to the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture, the peak year of p r o d u c t i o n for h e m p was 1943, when over 146,000 acres were harvested for fiber. The fiber was used to make a n u m b e r of military items.

Marijuana

as a Source of

Medicine

Records from as early as 3,000 B.C. indicate that the Chinese and Indian cultures used cannabis for therapeutic and medicinal purposes. In these countries it was used primarily as an antiseptic and analgesic. Chinese e m p e r o r Shen-Nung prescribed cannabis for beriberi, constipation, "female weaknesses," gout, malaria, rheumatism, and absentmindedness (Bloomquist 1968:19). Records show that in Egypt, in 2000 B.C., cannabis was used to treat sore eyes. Robinson (1946: 382-383) reported that in ancient Greece, cannabis was used to treat earaches, edema, and inflammation. It was n o t until a b o u t A.D. 400 that knowledge of these properties of cannabis reached the Near and Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe. In the n i n e t e e n t h century, d u r i n g the war against Egypt, Napoleon's scientific and medical advisers became interested in cannabis for use in relief of pain, as a sedative, and for its effectiveness in the t r e a t m e n t of burns. Within a few years after N a p o l e o n ' s r e t u r n to France from Egypt, cannabis b e c a m e r a t h e r widely accepted by the medical community. It began to be used for a n u m b e r of "medical" purposes after 1840 because of endorsements by p r o m i n e n t physicians. In some instances in the n i n e t e e n t h century, cannabis was used to control diarrhea in cholera and to stimulate appetite.

8

•

•

• MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

O'Shaughnessy (1842:41) argued that extra-large doses of cannabis would arrest and even cure tetanus. A Boston physician reported in 1857 that cannabis was useful in controlling mental and emotional disorders. Medical interest in cannabis was strong e n o u g h that the O h i o State Medical Society created the C o m m i t t e e on Cannabis Indica in 1860. It reported that cannabis successfully treated "neuralgic pain, dysmenorrhea, u t e r i n e h e m o r r h a g e , hysteria, delirium tremens, mania, palsy, whooping cough, infantile convulsions, asthma, gonorrhea, nervous rheumatism, chronic bronchitis, muscular spasms, tetanus, epilepsy, and appetite stimulation" (National Commission 1972:6). More than 100 articles were published between 1840 and 1890 r e c o m m e n d i n g use of cannabis to treat a n u m b e r of disorders. Similar medical uses of cannabis were reported by the Indian H e m p Drugs Commission (1894:174). Some of the other beneficial effects noted by this commission were prevention of insomnia, relief of anxiety, protection against cholera, alleviation of hunger, and greater ability to concentrate. T h e National Commission Report (1972:4) suggests that the socalled medical use of cannabis lost g r o u n d in the latter part of the n i n e t e e n t h and the first part of the twentieth centuries. The principal reasons cited are that other medications superior to cannabis in their effects emerged and that doses of these drugs were more easily controlled. A third reason was that the use of marijuana began to shift in the years between 1856 and 1937; rather than being used for medicinal purposes, it now was being used for intoxication. T h e 1937 Marijuana Tax Act effectively stifled any interest in the possible medicinal uses of cannabis products, at least until the late 1960s and early 1970s. In their widely used textbook, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, G o o d m a n and Gilman (1970:300) noted: "Although cannabis was once used for a wide variety of clinical disorders and has even been demonstrated to have antibacterial activity, there are at present no well substantiated indications for its use. It is no longer an official drug. Preparations are rarely available (cannabis preparation and synthetic T H C are obtainable only for research purposes), and prescriptions are regulated by special tax laws." In 1982, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences issued a r e p o r t entitled Marijuana and Health. In one of the chapters, the committee reviewed the potential of cannabis as medicine. T h e concluding statement for the c h a p t e r on the therapeutic potential and medical uses of marijuana provides an excellent summary of the knowledge up to that time: Cannabis and its derivatives have shown promise in the treatment of a variety of disorders. T h e evidence is most impressive in glaucoma,

MARIJUANA: THE PLANT . . .

9

where their mechanism of action appears to be d i f f e r e n t f r o m the standard drugs; in asthma, where they approach isoproterenol in effectiveness; a n d in the nausea a n d vomiting of cancer c h e m o t h e r apy, where they compare favorably with phenothiazines. Smaller trials have suggested cannabis m i g h t also be useful in seizures, spasticity, and other nervous system disorders. Effective doses usually p r o d u c e psychotropic a n d cardiovascular effects a n d can be troublesome, particularly in older patients. (1982:150) In the c h a p t e r o n m a r i j u a n a in t h e T h i r d T r i e n n i a l R e p o r t to C o n g r e s s o n D r u g A b u s e a n d D r u g A b u s e Research, Harris a n d Martin state: Reports have indicated that o n e or more of the cannabinoids have analgesic, anticonvulsant, antiglaucoma, a n t i n a u s e a n t , a n d antiemetic effects. Only o n e of these t h e r a p e u t i c indicants has b e e n useful in practice. Nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, was marketed in Canada in 1981 as an antiemetic a d j u n c t to cancer c h e m o t h e r apy. T h e new d r u g gained little clinical acceptance. In 1987, delta9-THC u n d e r the trade n a m e D r o n a b i n o l was i n t r o d u c e d in the United States as an antiemetic to control the nausea a n d vomiting accompanying cancer chemotherapy when they are not relieved by the usual antinauseant drugs. Dronabinol has been well received by physicians in the United States, a n d there is little evidence that it is being abused. (1991:137-138) In spite of the lack of c o m p e l l i n g e v i d e n c e for the t h e r a p e u t i c eff e c t i v e n e s s of t h e p s y c h o a c t i v e i n g r e d i e n t s in marijuana, t h e r e are still a n u m b e r o f p e o p l e a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n s w h o a d v o c a t e r e s c h e d u l ing marijuana f r o m S c h e d u l e I ( n o m e d i c a l u s e f u l n e s s , h i g h p o t e n tial for abuse) to S c h e d u l e II ( m e d i c a l u s e f u l n e s s , h i g h p o t e n t i a l for a b u s e ) (Trebach 1987). Marijuana

as an

Intoxicant

Weisheit succinctly describes the early history o f s m o k i n g marijuana for its i n t o x i c a t i n g effects. While most Americans think of m a r i j u a n a as s o m e t h i n g to be smoked, the practice of smoking marijuana did not begin until the 1500s and 1600s, after the i n t r o d u c t i o n of tobacco to E u r o p e . Before this time marijuana was eaten or a d d e d to foods. In some very early societies (e.g., 2500 B.C.) g r o u p s of p e o p l e would not smoke m a r i j u a n a in a cigarette or pipe, but would b u r n it in a tent or o t h e r small enclosure a n d breathe in the fumes. Still o t h e r groups would throw piles of it onto a campfire and stand nearby to inhale the fumes. Frazier (1974) cites evidence that on some parts of the Asian continent, near Mongolia, flowering tops of h e m p plants were b u r n e d in cone shaped tents designed to collect t h e f u m e s for inhalation. (1992:13)

10 • • • MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

Citing Snyder, the National Commission indicates that marijuana was probably first used as an intoxicant in India a r o u n d 1000 B.C., when it became a part of H i n d u culture. In India, those in the lower caste (class) drink bhang (made f r o m the leaves and stems of uncultivated marijuana plants and b l e n d e d into a liquid form) or smoke ganja (made f r o m the tops of cultivated plants) in a pipe as a relief from the fatigue and b o r e d o m of daily life. T h e most potent form of marijuana used in India is called charas, and is obtained by scraping the resin f r o m the leaves of cultivated plants a n d f o r m i n g it into hard blocks for smoking (1972:10). While the use of m a r i j u a n a in rituals, for intoxication, and for recreational purposes p e r m e a t e d Indian culture, it is interesting to note that in China, where it had been used for h u n d r e d s of years as a major source of fiber, use for intoxication did not emerge. T h e same cannot be said for Islamic cultures in the Middle East, where it became a part of many aspects of everyday life. Geller a n d Boas (1969:5) imply that one of the reasons cannabis caught on in Islam is that alcohol was prohibited. Use of cannabis for intoxication in Africa developed during the past 100 or so years, except in the parts of n o r t h e r n Africa where the major cultural influences are Islamic, as opposed to African, and where cannabis has been used for a long time (e.g., the form of marijuana known as kif in Morocco). As n o t e d earlier, the use of marijuana in Europe for its intoxicating properties emerged in the nineteenth century, after Napoleon and his armies b r o u g h t it back f r o m Egypt. Leading physicians in France and England wrote about and applauded the positive effects of marijuana, which led to interest in it, particularly within literary circles. T h e nature and extent of the use of marijuana for intoxication and recreational purposes in the United States will be discussed in a subsequent chapter. T h e purpose thus far has been to lay the historical foundation for that discussion. T h e discussion in the remainder of this chapter will focus on specific aspects of the marijuana plant that will be relevant to later discussions.

Physical Characteristics Cannabis sativa and the situation of its production and consumption in the United States is the primary focus of this work. W h e t h e r it grows outdoors as ditchweed or h e m p or is cultivated outdoors, this plant is an annual. In t e m p e r a t e climates, the seeds are planted in May or J u n e . When the plants are thinned, they grow as fast as 2 feet a week d u r i n g the peak growing season. At maturity, some are as

MARIJUANA: THE PLANT

. . .

11

high as 16 to 18 feet. Maturity is reached generally between three to five months after planting. Cannabis sativa can be male or female, with both sexes producing flowers. Bees are attracted to male flowers but not to female flowers. In o p e n spaces, pollination is accomplished by air. T h e sex of the plants can be d e t e r m i n e d when flowering occurs because the structure of the male and female flower is different. Male plants usually grow somewhat taller and begin to lose their leaves shortly after flowering; female plants lose their older leaves as the seed matures. Both male and female plants p r o d u c e resin that can be used as hashish. This resin is p r o d u c e d by glands that are f o u n d everywhere on the plant except in the roots and seeds. T h e a m o u n t of resin produced is related to the climate. T h e resin slows water loss in hot, dry environments; the hotter and drier, the more resin is produced. Female plants p r o d u c e more resin than male plants, b u t their resin production slows down after they are fertilized. Commercial growers who are interested in producing high-grade marijuana will separate male and female plants b e f o r e pollination. This allows the female plants to continue producing flowers, and thus more resin.

Cultivation Marijuana is cultivated by cutting the stem of the plant somewhere beneath the lowest branches, and then air drying and stripping the seeds, bracts, flowers, leaves, and small stems from the plant. The stems and seeds usually are removed with a mesh screen. The resulting product is known as "manicured marijuana." Hashish is produced by scraping the thick resin secreted by the glands on the flowers of the plant. Sinsemilla (Spanish for "without seeds") is p r o d u c e d by harvesting the resin buds from the female plants. As Weisheit states: Sinsemilla is n o t a distinct variety or strain o f marijuana b u t is t h e result of a particular m e t h o d o f cultivation. D u r i n g f l o w e r i n g , the buds of f e m a l e plants b e c o m e thick with resin (which is l o a d e d with T H C , the psychoactive alkaloid). If the f l o w e r i n g f e m a l e plants are n o t p o l l i n a t e d , t h e s e t o p s c o n t i n u e to p r o d u c e b o t h f l o w e r s a n d resin, b e c o m i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y p o t e n t . Cultivators o f s i n s e m i l l a kill the m a l e plants as s o o n as they are o l d e n o u g h to d e t e r m i n e t h e plant's s e x — b e t w e e n two a n d t h r e e m o n t h s after g e r m i n a t i o n . From the r e m a i n i n g f e m a l e plants m o s t growers harvest only t h e s e f e m a l e b u d tops, also k n o w n as colas. (1992:57) T h e c a n n a b i s sativa p l a n t is a c o m p l e x c h e m i c a l factory. T h e crude drug marijuana, which is m a d e from its dried leaves and flowering tops, contains 4 2 6 chemicals. T h e s e c h e m i c a l s are t r a n s f o r m e d

12

.

.

.

MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

into 2,000 chemicals when smoked. More than 70 of these 426 chemicals are called cannabinoids and are f o u n d in n o o t h e r plant. All c a n n a b i n o i d s tested to date are biologically active. This means that each cannabinoid will alter some function of a living organism. (DEA 1991:2)

T h e potency of m a r i j u a n a is d e t e r m i n e d by the p e r c e n t a g e of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) it contains. The potency of marijuana is obviously d e t e r m i n e d by the variety (sinsemilla is more potent than marijuana cultivated in the normal fashion, which is itself more potent than ditchweed) and the genetics of the plant, but it is also i n f l u e n c e d by the m e t h o d s used for growing, harvesting, and storing. In the next chapter, we will e x a m i n e in m o r e detail the actual practices used in growing marijuana and begin to explore the data that exist on where and how much marijuana is grown in the United States. In the chapters about marijuana consumption, we will use existing data to f u r t h e r explore the changes in T H C c o n t e n t of the marijuana consumed in the United States and the meaning of these changes.

3 Cultivation and Production of Marijuana in the United States

Marijuana and the Public-Policy Agenda T h e r e are a n u m b e r of federal agencies responsible for d r u g control in the United States. Although most attention is given to heroin, cocaine, and crack, cannabis does receive some attention at the federal level. There are a n u m b e r of reasons, however, that marijuana should receive priority. First, it is an illegal d r u g and there are already harsh penalties for possessing and trafficking in it. Second, a cornerstone of federal d r u g policies is the belief that marijuana is a primary gateway d r u g for use of o t h e r illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine. This being the case, t h e r e are strong motivations for dealing with marijuana in the h o p e of preventing use of cocaine and heroin. Third, heroin and cocaine are not grown in the United States; marij u a n a is. Fourth, the United States is considered responsible for much of the world d e m a n d for illicit drugs. A major thrust of U.S. d r u g policies is to encourage, cajole, and even force heroin- and cocaine-producing countries to curtail the supply of these drugs at the source. If marijuana is assumed to play a key role in the overall drug picture, globally as well as domestically, it is incumbent on the U.S. government to take seriously the cultivation and production of this illegal d r u g within its own borders. Failure of the federal and other governments to take marijuana seriously, especially in controlling its cultivation, production, and distribution, makes the U.S. gove r n m e n t vulnerable in the international community to charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency. Asking the "producing" countries (for 13

14 .

.

• MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

example, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Afghanistan, Myanmar/Burma, Laos, and so on) to curb their drug-producing activities while not attending to the marijuana production in the United States puts the federal government in a difficult and possibly indefensible policy position.

Amounts of Marijuana Produced It is very difficult to estimate the a m o u n t of marijuana p r o d u c e d in the United States. T h e r e are probably as many different estimates as there are ways of estimating. However the issue is a p p r o a c h e d , it is important to apply caveats to all estimates, looking first at the biases that might lie b e h i n d them. Perhaps the best place to start is in the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the key drug-policy office located administratively in the executive office of the president of the United States. The first National Drug Control Strategy established the following goals for reductions in domestic marijuana production (below 1988 estimates of 4,600 metric tons): 10 percent (to roughly 4,150 metric tons) in two years, and 50 percent (to roughly 2,300 metric tons) in ten years. The second National Drug Control Strategy subsequently revised the ten year objective slightly upward. (Office of National Drug Control Policy 1991:16)

The revised objective for 1993 was a 20 percent reduction, instead of a 10 p e r c e n t reduction, below the 1988 levels of domestic marij u a n a production; the revised objective for 2001 was a 65 percent reduction instead of a 50 p e r c e n t reduction. These goals call for substantial reductions in marijuana production in the United States, implying the existence of effective strategies for reducing production. At least two observations should be made c o n c e r n i n g the ONDCP estimates. T h e first c o n c e r n s the ONDCP estimate for domestic marijuana p r o d u c t i o n in 1988: 4,600 metric tons. (A metric ton is 2,200 pounds.) T h e ONDCP d o c u m e n t contains no discussion of the methodology used to obtain this estimate. Second, this and all such n u m b e r s should be examined critically to see if they make sense. T h e following calculations will illustrate this point. There are 28 grams in an ounce, 16 ounces in a pound, and 2,200 p o u n d s in a metric ton. Therefore, there are 161,920,000 ounces in 4,600 metric tons. If it is assumed that one marijuana j o i n t contains 0.5 grams of marijuana, then an ounce of marijuana will yield fifty-six joints. Thus, 4,600 metric tons of marijuana would yield approximately 9 billion joints. If we then make a second assumption, that all

CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA IN THE U.S.

. . .

15

250 million people in the United States are at risk for smoking marijuana, the result would be thirty-six joints for every man, woman, and child. This is a totally unrealistic estimate. Data from the 1988 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates (National Institute on D r u g Abuse [NIDA] 1989) also illustrates the absurdity of the ONDCP estimate. This survey involved a representative sample of the U.S. population twelve years old and older. Interviews with the individuals sampled provided an estimate that 11,616,000 people had smoked marijuana at least once in the m o n t h p r e c e d i n g the survey. Twenty p e r c e n t of pastm o n t h users r e p o r t e d using m a r i j u a n a daily d u r i n g that m o n t h . ("Daily" is defined here as use on 20-30 days of the month.) For discussion purposes, we can assume that the patterns exhibited by these past-month daily users were the p a t t e r n s exhibited t h r o u g h o u t the year. Dividing the n u m b e r of past-month users into the 9 billion joints ONDCP estimates were p r o d u c e d in 1988 yields 750 j o i n t s per current user during that year. That would be at least 2 joints a day for all past-month-users, only 20 percent of whom are daily users. Even more amazing a b o u t the ONDCP estimate of 4,600 metric tons is that it is just for domestic marijuana production. It does not include any marijuana imported from other countries, such as Mexico. T h e same National Drug Control Strategy (ONDCP 1991:15) states that "domestic production now supplies 10 percent of the marijuana available in the United States, and in absolute quantity it has been growing in recent years—up 20 percent from 1988 to 1989." If domestic production is only 10 percent of the marijuana available in the United States, then the total a m o u n t of marijuana available in 1988 was 46,000 metric tons, or 7,500 joints for every current user. T h e ONDCP estimate of domestic marijuana p r o d u c t i o n for 1988 is n o t only incredible, but incredulous. If the calculations of consumption shown above are even close to correct, the n u m b e r s from ONDCP cannot and should not be believed. Given the d e a r t h of information about methodology, it is important to look carefully and critically at the other n u m b e r s available c o n c e r n i n g how much marijuana is produced in the United States. Sources

of

Data

T h e r e are at least four d i f f e r e n t sources of i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t how much marijuana is cultivated, p r o d u c e d , and available for distribution and use in the United States: federal a n d o t h e r agencies responsible for eradication of the plants; estimates of levels of use from

16

•

•

•

MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

population-based epidemiologic studies, which can then be used to back-calculate how m u c h marijuana is grown; estimates based on a m o u n t s of marijuana interdicted and confiscated after it has b e e n processed; and estimates based on reports of d r u g traffickers. An important source of information on domestic cultivation and p r o d u c t i o n of m a r i j u a n a comes f r o m the agencies responsible for eradicating the m a r i j u a n a crops grown in the United States. These agencies and their personnel represent federal, state, and local lawe n f o r c e m e n t systems. Although t h e r e is a hierarchical relationship a m o n g them, and a substantial p r o p o r t i o n of the f u n d s used for these activities originate at the federal level, there is also a certain d e g r e e of tension a n d competitiveness a m o n g them. For example, some of the personnel involved in the efforts to eradicate marijuana belong to the National Guard, citizen-soldiers who are part of the overall structure of the D e p a r t m e n t of Defense, but who serve in the military only on weekends and for short periods during the summer or on special assignments. These quasi-military men and women live a m o n g those whose marijuana grows (plots) they are o r d e r e d to destroy. Although they belong to the U.S. military structure, they are organized u n d e r state authority as well. T h e methodology used by the various agencies involved in eradication is fairly straightforward. They locate the plots, cut the plants, and take t h e m to a central location where troops count a n d b u r n them (a process informally known as "smoking dope"). By counting the n u m b e r of plants and plots eradicated and estimating what percentage this represents of the total domestic marijuana crop, it is possible to arrive at an estimate of the total. This methodology is problematic for several reasons. First, marij u a n a growers have several options for cultivating their crop. By planting a plot where it will be easily found, they make the j o b much easier for those responsible for eradication. T h e more plots easily found, the greater success authorities can claim in the war on drugs. An increase in the a m o u n t of marijuana plants cut and b u r n e d , however, does not necessarily mean a net reduction in the a m o u n t of marijuana p r o d u c e d . A n o t h e r option growers have is to move their crops f a r t h e r into the brush or to sprinkle the marijuana plants t h r o u g h o u t a corn crop to make them more difficult to find. Still another option they have is to cultivate the crop indoors, which makes it even more difficult to locate using the traditional methods of surveillance. Growers employ all of these options and others. Second, in marijuana-growing areas, there is a persistent belief that many of the m a r i j u a n a plants the authorities c o u n t as "destroyed" are missing the most valuable parts when thrown o n t o the fire. I n f o r m a n t s talk a b o u t eradication personnel who leave plots

CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA IN THE U.S.

. . .

17

where they have cut the plants with the pockets of their pants and shirts bulging. This story is c o m m o n in marijuana-growing areas. It could, however, have little basis in fact. Law-enforcement officials have emphatically denied such allegations. T h e Bureau of Land M a n a g e m e n t and the U.S. Forest Service are the agencies responsible for m o n i t o r i n g the use a n d misuse of federal lands. Federal lands, particularly national forests, are rep o r t e d to be favorite locations for growing plots of marijuana. T h e plots are usually located in isolated and inaccessible places, so unless the grower is actually caught with his or her plot of marijuana, there is virtually no way to be connected with a plot that is discovered. And since the plot is on federal land, even if the culprit is caught, he or she will not be liable for confiscation of personal property u n d e r asset-forfeiture laws. T h e methodology used to estimate the a m o u n t of federal land that is used to cultivate marijuana is still fairly imprecise. It involves taking known plots and the terrain in which they are f o u n d and estimating how many plants might be f o u n d if the density of these crops were somewhat u n i f o r m . T h e growers' decisionmaking process for choosing where to plant marijuana on federal lands is not known. Given the visibility of the eradication process, the noise of the helicopters and the attendant publicity, it is likely that growers have a strategy that involves allowing authorities to find some of the marijuana they plant, but planting the bulk of their crop in places that are increasingly difficult to find. This is probably easier on federal lands than it is elsewhere. T h e growers choose very isolated places that are virtually inaccessible to everyone, except by accident. As they go d e e p e r and d e e p e r into the forest, their chances of being detected are reduced and the likelihood that they will make a substantial profit is therefore much greater. In 1979, the Drug E n f o r c e m e n t Administration (DEA) established the Domestic Cannabis E r a d i c a t i o n / S u p p r e s s i o n Program (DCE/SP), with c o m b i n e d federal, state, and local eradication efforts in Hawaii and California. Today, these programs operate in all fifty states of the United States. T h e D C E / S P provides a continuing source of data, possibly the best source to date, for estimating the magnitude of domestic marijuana cultivation and production in the United States. T h e data in Table 3.1 are f r o m the DCE/SP's 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 reports. T h e r e are a n u m b e r of items in these data that deserve special attention. First, the DEA has made several changes in the categories used to report these data. For example, for 1988, 1989, and 1990, data were presented on plots sighted and plots eradicated, but the category of

18

•

• • M A R I J U A N A IN APPALACHIA

Table 3.1

Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program Total Statistics, 1988-1991 1989

1988 Plots sighted Plots eradicated % eradicated/sighted Indoor grows seized Indoor plants eradicated Cultivated plants eradicated Sinsemilla plants eradicated % sinsemilla/cultivated Ditchweed eradicated Total eradicated % ditchweed/total Bulk processed marijuana seized Arrests Weapons seized Assets seized (U.S. $) % increase assets seized

48,349 38,531 80 1,240 —

5,343,980 2,853,689 53 101,932,328 107,276,308 95 —

6,062 2,034 9,854,691 —

1990

55,864 49,699 89 1,398 —

5,635,696 2,084,921 37 124,288,999 129,924,695 96 —

5,767 2,320 29,545,033 200

1991

31,152 29,469 95 1,669 —

7,328,769 2,039,597 28 118,547,983 125,876,752 94 —

5,729 3,210 38,691,584 32

42,660 — —

282,908 5,257,486 2,251,735 43 133,786,059 139,326,453 96 39,041 9,364 4,200 52,830,475 37

Sources: DEA 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991.

plots sighted was n o t included in subsequent reports. T h e data on plots sighted are interesting, however, because they show substantial variation across years; f r o m over 48,000 in 1988 to almost 56,000 in 1989, and then down to just slightly over 31,000 in 1990. T h e report offers no substantive explanation for a 16 percent increase in plots sighted between 1988 and 1989 a n d t h e n a 44 p e r c e n t decrease in plots sighted from 1989 to 1990. If there is a learning curve a m o n g the pilots and those who decide where to look for marijuana plots, one would expect a linear increase in plots sighted from year to year, unless there is a significant variation in plots grown—at least grown where they might reasonably be f o u n d . Second, the ratio of n u m b e r of plots eradicated to n u m b e r of plots sighted improved considerably between 1988 and 1990: 80 percent in 1988, 89 p e r c e n t in 1989, and 95 p e r c e n t in 1990. This certainly suggests greater effectiveness and efficiency over those three years, a trend that r u n s counter to the substantial variation in number of plots sighted over the same three-year period. It is also interesting to note the changes in the n u m b e r of plots eradicated. From 1988 to 1989 there is a 29 percent increase in the n u m b e r of plots destroyed (from 38,531 to 49,699). T h e n , from 1989 to 1990, t h e r e is a 41 p e r c e n t decrease in plots destroyed, f r o m almost 50,000 to slightly less than 30,000. From 1990 to 1991, however, there is again a substantial increase, f r o m almost 30,000 to almost

CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA IN THE U.S.

. . .

19

43,000. The DEA offers n o explanation for this wide variation in the n u m b e r of plots destroyed, but it could be important. Third, two new categories were a d d e d to the 1991 report: number of indoor plants eradicated and bulk processed marijuana seized. These numbers are important if there is increasing pressure to move growing operations indoors, which improves both the chances of escaping detection and the quality of the marijuana grown. T h e data show a yearly increase in the n u m b e r of indoor growing operations seized during the three years 1988 to 1990: 13 percent (from 1,240 to 1,398) between 1988 to 1989, and 19 percent (from 1,398 to 1,669) between 1989 and 1990. T h e only data on the n u m b e r of actual ind o o r plants eradicated are for 1991, when 282,908 were destroyed. If we use the 1990 n u m b e r of i n d o o r grows seized (1,669) and the 1991 n u m b e r of i n d o o r plants eradicated (282,908), the average n u m b e r of plants in each indoor grow is approximately 170. Without a point of comparison a n d m o r e information about the range a r o u n d the putative average, there is no way of d e t e r m i n i n g what is or is not a large indoor growing operation. It is assumed that the n u m b e r of i n d o o r grows seized is correlated to the success of efforts to eradicate o u t d o o r plots. This assumption may or may not be true. T h e percentage increases may reflect improvements in intelligence, surveillance, a n d o t h e r techniques and strategies for identifying potential indoor growers and ind o o r growing operations (e.g., sales of seeds for growing cannabis, sales of machinery for actually growing the plants, and the infrared and other technologies that are employed). Although still just a hypothesis, it is plausible that the increasing n u m b e r of indoor grows reflects the entrance into the marijuana cultivation and production business of growers f r o m higher socioeconomic backgrounds who have experience with the computers and other complex machinery required of such an operation. It is also possible that the increase in indoor grows provides an index for the a p p e a r a n c e of vertically integrated organizations that are in the business f r o m the planting of the seeds to the distribution of the final product. Fourth, the p e r c e n t of cultivated plants a c c o u n t e d for by sinsemilla is important because sinsemilla is considered to be the best variety of marijuana. T h e n u m b e r of sinsemilla plants eradicated remained a r o u n d 2 million d u r i n g the years 1988 to 1991. Sinsemilla accounted for 53 percent of all cultivated plants destroyed in 1988, but this percentage d r o p p e d to 37 percent in 1989 and to 28 percent in 1990. It then r e b o u n d e d to 43 percent in 1991. These data do not clearly indicate an emerging trend; however, they do show that less than one-half of the cultivated plants eradicated in the United States each year are sinsemilla.

20

• • • MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

It is clear f r o m everything that is known a b o u t marijuana use that habitual smokers prefer the better-quality marijuana. The data in Table 3.1 show a relatively stable n u m b e r of cultivated plants eradicated: about 5 million per year except in 1990. It is difficult to know exactly how to interpret this. It may mean that the law-enforcement agencies' capacity to eradicate this aspect of domestic marijuanap r o d u c i n g activités has a fairly stable u p p e r limit, regardless of the a m o u n t of resources available. On the other h a n d , it may mean that the growers' productive capacity for cultivated plants is limited d u e to a lack of r e c r u i t m e n t into the d r u g trade at the growing end of the business. Finally, it may m e a n that growers know, or can guess, where the authorities will search for cultivated plants, and plant enough in those areas to satisfy the need for n u m b e r s and to protect the safety and well-being of the police and National Guard personnel who cut and b u r n the plants. Fifth, it is i m p o r t a n t to e x a m i n e carefully how much of all the marijuana eradicated in the United States is essentially useless ditchweed. T h e answer is a b o u t 95 p e r c e n t (see Tables 3.2-3.3 on pp. 24-27). This is a crucial n u m b e r because ditchweed has very little commercial value. In fact, it has grown wild in every state for many years. In parts of the u p p e r Midwest, the growth of this wild species of marijuana stems f r o m the 1942-1945 federally p r o m o t e d campaign to grow marijuana when the J a p a n e s e cut off the supply of h e m p from the Philippines during World War II. This figure is also important because it raises two questions relevant to policy. T h e first c o n c e r n s how serious the U.S. government is about the major illegal d r u g being p r o d u c e d in the United States. The second has to do with the effective and efficient allocation of resources in the so-called war on drugs. If only 5 percent of the cannabis being destroyed each year is the cultivated variety and the remainder is ditchweed, it is possible that the primary purpose of the D C E / S P is purely political: that it is just part of the public-relations effort within the global political arena concerning the importance of d r u g abuse as a high-priority item on the U.S. public-policy agenda. Sixth, the data on the n u m b e r of arrests are curious. From 1988 to 1989 there was a 5 percent decrease in the n u m b e r of arrests, with only a 1 p e r c e n t decrease f r o m 1989 to 1990. T h e n , from 1990 to 1991, there was a 63 percent increase. This may indicate a significant improvement in intelligence and police operations between 1990 and 1991, or it may reflect the conclusion of an evolving investigation that led to the arrests of many people involved in the same criminal enterprise. Given the small a m o u n t of text accompanying the data in the DEA report, it is impossible to do anything but speculate.

CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA IN THE U.S. . . .

21

In fact, the official statistics do not state how many of these arrests were for cultivation and production, distribution, or possession. Seventh, there has been a clear increase in the n u m b e r of weapons seized: 14 percent from 1988 to 1989, 38 percent from 1989 to 1990, and 31 percent from 1990 to 1991. There is substantial concern in the United States about the connection between d r u g use and violence, as well as the role of the drug-trafficking system on the overall level of violence in this country. Significantly more data are needed before any clear conclusions can be drawn about the connection between the cultivation, production, and distribution of marijuana and the attendant violence. Finally, some of the most impressive figures in Table 3.1 are those for assets seized under the asset-forfeiture provisions of federal law. T h e r e was a 32 percent increase from 1989 to 1990, and a 37 percent increase from 1990 to 1991. The 1991 figure of almost U.S. $53 million is striking for several reasons. The overall funding level for the DCE/SP in Fiscal Year 1991 was only $13.7 million. The assetsseized figure may, then, indicate that the program is cost effective. It brings in almost $4 in assets seized for every $1 invested by the DEA. The 1991 figure is also impressive because it means an average of $5,642 of assets seized for every arrest. If that is the correct interpretation, it could be used as another index of program success. Marijuana Production by State, 1990, 1991, and 1992 The preceding analyses of the total statistics from the United States provided by the DEA for the DCE/SP demonstrate clearly the importance of critical thinking and full disclosure of underlying assumptions. These analyses also suggest that the key to understanding marijuana cultivation, production, distribution, and use in the United States is to focus primarily on cultivated plants and sinsemilla. T h e fact that approximately 95 percent of the marijuana eradicated in the United States has essentially no commercial value is an extremely important issue, which we will discuss later in this chapter. An analysis of the DCE/SP data at the state level is appropriate here. Tables 3.2 (1990), 3.3 (1991), and 3.4 (1992) provide the basic data on which subsequent analyses are based, many of which will involve creating an array of the statistics from the highest n u m b e r to the lowest, ranking the states by n u m b e r of cultivated plants eradicated in 1990, 1991, and 1992, and computing a correlation coefficient for the ranks. These subsequent analyses will focus almost entirely on data from 1992, which are the latest available.

22 .

.

.

MARIJUANA IN APPALACHIA

Eradication Efforts Tables 3.2-3.4 indicate DCE-SP statistics f r o m 1990 t h r o u g h 1992. T h e data in Table 3.5 show the top ten states for total plants eradicated and for ditchweed eradicated for 1991 and 1992. T h e r e are several i m p o r t a n t items to note in these data. First, the top ten states are all in the Midwest. During World War II, when access to h e m p f r o m the Philippines was cut off by the Japanese, the U n i t e d States government actively recruited farmers to grow marijuana for use in the m a n u f a c t u r e of rope products. It is hypothesized that m u c h of the marijuana eradicated in these ten states is "wild weed" descended f r o m marijuana cultivated during World War II. Second, it should be n o t e d that an overwhelming p e r c e n t a g e of the m a r i j u a n a plants eradicated in these ten midwestern states is ditchweed, essentially useless as a recreational drug. Third, the value of Spearman's rho (a statistical test of the correlation between two sets of ranks) is .61, which indicates that the rank in 1991 a m o n g these ten states is strongly correlated with their rank in 1992. Finally, f r o m a purely practical public-policy perspective, it is i m p o r t a n t to ask ourselves what the real value is of e x p e n d i n g capital and h u m a n resources to eradicate a variety of marijuana that has virtually no market value as a recreational product. T h e data in Table 3.6 (1991-1992) are for the top twenty-five states with regard to the n u m b e r of cultivated plants eradicated and the n u m b e r of sinsemilla plants eradicated. These states are then ranked on those variables. T h e r e are two important points to note in these data. First, in both 1991 and 1992, slightly less than half of the cultivated plants destroyed in each year (43.3 p e r c e n t in 1991 and 44.2 percent in 1992) were high-quality sinsemilla. These figures are comparable to the figures for the entire nation for 1991 (42.8 percent c o m p a r e d to 43.3 p e r c e n t ) . For 1992, however, only 31.5 percent of all cultivated plants eradicated were sinsemilla, c o m p a r e d to 44.2 percent for the top twenty-five states listed in Table 3.6. Second, in 1991, the top twenty-five states accounted for 95.6 p e r c e n t of all cultivated plants destroyed nationally and 96.7 percent of sinsemilla destroyed. In 1992, the top twenty-five states accounted for 98.3 percent of sinsemilla destroyed but only 69.9 percent of cultivated plants destroyed. T h e explanation for this figure involves only o n e state, Nebraska. In 1992, Nebraska claimed an incredible n u m b e r of cultivated plants destroyed (2,000,660), only fifty-nine of which were sinsemilla. Nebraska also claimed that 4,150,760 ditchweed plants were destroyed in 1992. It is possible that a substantial n u m b e r of the cultivated plants allegedly destroyed in Nebraska were also ditchweed but misclassified as cultivated plants.

CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA IN THE U.S.

. . .

23

T h e value of Spearman's r h o for cultivated plants eradicated in 1991 and cultivated plants eradicated in 1992 is .657, which is a fairly strong correlation. This shows that the ranking of the top twenty-five states for 1991 is close to the ranking of these states in 1992. T h e correlation of rank between the n u m b e r of sinsemilla plants eradicated in 1991 and the n u m b e r eradicated in 1992 is even stronger (.788). These correlational values show a high d e g r e e of continuity in the relative n u m b e r of cultivated and sinsemilla plants destroyed in adj a c e n t years, which is not surprising. T h e degree to which there is a lack of continuity may reflect some competitiveness a m o n g states and some degree of latitude in how many plants can be cut and destroyed by the agencies participating in the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/ Suppression Program. O n e response to greater and m o r e successful efforts at eradication of marijuana plants grown outdoors is to move cultivation operations indoors. Several important questions should be addressed with regard to growing m a r i j u a n a inside. T h e first c o n c e r n s where this type of cultivation is most prevalent. T h e data in Table 3.7 show that three western states (California, Oregon, and Washington) account for a disproportionate share of i n d o o r plants. O n e possible reason for this is the reputation these three states have as trendsetters and benchmarks for the rest of the United States. Another reason is that these states have large a m o u n t s of isolated, heavily forested, and sparsely populated land. Finally, in these states there are clusters of survivors of the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, who may account for a relatively large percentage of marijuana cultivators. A second question is if the states with the largest n u m b e r of outdoor marijuana crops also have a large n u m b e r of indoor crops. Although there is some overlap, there is not enough to suggest a very strong linkage between indoor and outdoor operations. Growing marij u a n a indoors takes considerable skill and information as well as a substantial investment of time and money. It does provide more harvesting opportunities and greater control over some of the variables than does outdoor marijuana cultivation, but people cannot enter the indoor growing business without substantial capital. Further, the overall number of existing indoor growing operations is still quite small. In 1991, 2,848 such operations were seized; in 1992, 3,849 were seized. It is also possible to plant outdoor crops on sites where ownership of the land is in question, but the same is not true of indoor growing operations. Federal Funding for Cannabis Eradication:

1990-1991

Table 3.8 presents data on how m u c h money was allocated by the federal government to each state for cannabis eradication in 1991

«

2 JS =3 3 a- « £ U

o o o CM to CM to 0 0 to r^ to oo"TP m" eo"eo" CM CO CT)

CO

O

O

R-

IO

«O CM 1-T

m CM o o o o o o o o o o o Tf IO CT> o m CO. 00 o in CM CM" CM in r-T io"Ti-* I O to lO CTi 00 CTI I—1 CM" CT" CO f—' lO

IS IE «.a

«y _2 -5 K w

ID

CTIo o ^ o o. io" r TP CTI

CM

»-H

o crf

CM

,-H o o o eo CM to' io" 00 o CTI CO oo" CM

CM m co >o to CM eo 0 0 CTi IO CO o o rH o 1-1 o co eo CM to CTI lO to Tf Tf o o 0 0 ro co to CM eo m 00

ICT) CT) to CT) to Tf to CT) to o CO o CM to to o CM 00 00 CT>CM 00 Tt-o Tf to 00 co C*l o Tt> CM n lO CM_ iO_ l O o CM CM l O X Tf CM eo o_ IO" 00" CT)" CN CN co r^ IN CN

00 CO 0" I—1

0 Tf 00 lO_

rt

CT1 CO 00" co

>o O 0 0 O 0 O i-H 10 CO CO 10 CO CN CO 0 0 co CO 0 1—1 0 CTI r- 10 CO IO IO co CM 00 CTI CO CM CM i—1 CM T—4 IM I—1 r^ 10"

r^ CO

co CO i> IO IO CO O co co 00 r ^ O •0" 00 I—1 r - co. 10 CM cti 0 ,—T Tf" 10" 0" co" 0" CTi" Tf

IO O 10 CO CT>10 10 0 >0 CO 00 O M CM t^ co" CTl" Tf CO CO CM CTI t^ io CTl. CTI 00 i-H 10" CM I—1

0 O 0 0 0 CT> O 0 0 0 CO 0 IO CTI 0 CM CM O r-" CTl" 0 !N OO"

0 O CO t^ 0 CO IM O. CO* 1—T CO

CO CO 00 R—1 CO •f CM CTII > ^f" in 1—1

1—1 0 0 0 10 0 t^ CM O CO co 10 TP O CO CO 00" ^ t-" co" C^" r^ 00 00 00 1—i

„„

^

_ CO Tf Tt" IO io 00 CTI co >0 - 00 CTl" 00" c^i 00"

CM CM CTI0 O O TI »O ^ CO CO 00 00 CTIO 1M 0 CTl00 00 io R—" co" «5 co" >o" CTICM CM

C^l

r^ CO IO co 0 CO O IO CM IO 0 CO CO 00 t^ 0 CO 00 CO 00 00 CO 0 f o_ t^ CO. IO IO t^ »0. 00 >0 CO 00 ,-H co" co" CTl" co" O" CM CTI >0" co" 0 " io IO CN CO CO •«f f CO IO o_

CM i - " CTI lO CO ci ^ ^ in 10 « CO 00 CM

«

00 CM

co 00 CTI i»" io 00"

co

co o_ cm"

0 0 CTI io Tt< CTICO °o. CTICN vo" r-" 00 CM 0 CO.

Tf CTI00 CO 00 CO 1 10

cti CO cO_

10"

CT>"

CM

CTl CTl CTl 00" 00 CM T)0" CO CO 10"

0 00 co" t CO 10"

00 CTl CO.

O CM_ T-S

IO O « O 10 io t'- CTI CO00 CM co CO co CTIO O CO 00 CTl CM O 00 0 ir. CTl i-cCO CO CTICM l-H I> 00 CM CO •0" 10

CTl Tf CO 00" Ti-

3

3

«

• 2 u ^ S i S i —< •—t. 00 I—1 to"

CM CM IO I>"

o 00 o co" 00 00 1—1

o o CO o T P >o oo" 00

TP CO OO o I > GM f - . ÍM" >o" io" to CTI CTI I O CM"

CM o T f CO o . 00 "O oo" CTI I—1 1—1 I—«

00 o tO 00 (O c> CT¡" CM co Tp CO. I—R

CTÌ CTI t o CO GM O 1—1 to" t o en CO. TP_ " i o CT) o t o CT> 00. i o "o " CM t ^ o . co o O IO CT) CTI CO TP io o o 00. CO t o l—t I—I co CM"

TF

TP CT) 00 TP" to ^H

CO Tf CM O CT) Tt< t o CO IO I—' to" to" O " o" CT) TP

O O

TP CO

I-H t o o TP CT) CT) CO TP CT) T-H CO CO CO CT) r ^ co" co" TP" CM" H TP" O o CO CO i o

M

o S •S

o o •o

3 c «

S

E

2 Í O

O co TP 00 CM O 00 TP co t o IO. IO >o_ I—* IO_ r T P >o" to" TP

00 t ^ t o 00 00 CM 00. CTì"

I> to TP CO !—< r CM i—1

io CO CM co"

CT) CO O. co"

CL O. 3

E

IO tO CT) O >o o" o" CT) o t o 00 o" ^

00 00 o TP" CM 00

to 00 00 o" CT)

O IO CT) IO CM O CM CT) CT) IM R ^ rCT).O . 00. CM CT) co" to"

CM O CO 00 CT) >o o . o" o" r-" oo CO GM o CT) t o CT>"CT)" to

S -C :

ci S

IO CO o R-H to" CM i o TP CT>"o " R^

TF CT) t o o t o CM CM CO TP CT) CT) 00 to CO CT) IO"

CM co CT) TP CO TP TP o CT) TP o 00 CM CT) TP" CM" CM" to" o " co" CM IO CM R ^ TP. CM"

TP - 1 CT) t o O M Ro CM 1—1 00 TP"

CT) CT) 00 t ^ 00 O . GM CO en" GM TP" o ^H CO. co" CT) ^

00 co t o CO TP t o CO TP o CO >o t o TP o t o 00 co o . to. 00 o . co" co" co" CM"

CT) O tO co TP ^ ,-H CM"

TP GM »o CM"

00 CO co

CM t o TP i—1 o TP" CM"

CT) CO IO IO CM o I—i t o t o CM"

^ I) N

•O "O

Q

t o CO O O CT) CT) CO 00 CT) 00 T—< CM"

W

O § •§

.S cn

O

•o a », rt t i

u o o

• S i 3 1 Ü

1

TP 00 CM »o 00 » o CO 1—1 to" o" TP IO

CT) r-* »o o CM IO. 00. o rH1 CM I—I 1 >o

TP CT) >o CT) CM CO o CM 00 TiCO* TP* to" to o R—1

CT) CM >o_ GM ^H* CO* »o R—1

o t o 00 o 00 I—1 CT) CM o " oo" oo" I—1 CO T P CM CO

T P i o o CO o t o CT) 00 T P CO io CM* CO CM* o " CT) o CO

CT) CM o Tp »o t^ o I > " co" CM

i o IO o co io r ^ to. r - . oo" H" r - " CM CO CO io

o o

o o to o CT) o . TP" oo"

o

t^ o"

t ^ CT) o CO CM CO r - " oo" CM R-

t o >o o CT) CM IO CM eo. CM CM GM CM*

00 00 t o 00 CO 00 T P CO t o o t o CM" CM" CT)"oo"

Tp t o CT) TP o i o CT) i o t o o CT) 00 T P CT) CM CO o 00 to" CM" ,-H CT) CT)"o " CT)"o o t o CM o r - CM io CM 00

o o TP o O i o CM o - H tO CM CO CM CT) CO CO CM o CM o . 00* CT)" TP

CO o o CT) TP CT) r - CT) t o PH CM" TP" CT) o

o »o X to to CT). CO GM CM"

-o S «

V

E

2 .2 ^re Cl, »tri

O O 73

j 3r O

1 , O O C 0 O l 0 0 O O 0 0 H r t ( û r t C 0 i i 5 0 l O l û W 0 0 C 0 H ^ c 0 c 0 l Û H O 1 , i ' co i n c o i n m o o w H i n ^ T f H i n o c c u û c o o H c o M X K û H H ai ^ H o ^ cf) H efj m co ce t û ec r-• o

w

o

O

_a¡

.o

E

18

i

1

1 o

1 re 1 re S -O be

o

CT>"

CM

I

I

00

CT)

TO TO.

CT)

CO.

^

CO 00

CT) CT) CT)

CT)

OO" 00 CM TP CM

TP M OO" '

CO «—I O CO CO^ CM —R R-»" O "

TP CM O TP TP

H 00 H CO O L OÍ Í - » I N

C -2 ^ O E P ¡R, .' 5SB' J S J E

^

3 BOA) £ G A

3 3 •S TE, G H

V) IX 3 BO £ .S U.

CÔ a ^ D S .a c

ooocoHHOoaoinoincoaiooocMooaiO'-'ococot^ooocoaior^TPo oot^ooini>oooo©aii>©cocoi>oo.-HincMininHH©©coocococoin© oo id N iq » co co o oo ^ in ^h ai ^ w o t^ t^ W o w «o io oo ai o ^ o" ©" co co" cm oí" en' co rn" ©" co o" ai' I --' cm oo* o" ai" co" rn" co o" ai co co o" tp oo ai © r^ © m W© CIjN M CUH M TVJp TNp J• c Os^l H H»—I C o i >I o oI a i T 4p r ^ c M o i o o i > c o i > r ^ c M T p ^ M û i n iQ rt H NM O CO Cc lOf M lim O ri H î W Cl t^ < O ™ Kl FH Iñ CM CO ' m O i f lJ IN^ ^^ O ,_r ,-T " r Tf" I-H" 00 cm"

t/i

O a; CL N

CO

CO

1 3

O

CO CO

IsOOi-HOCOOOTfOifiOO^illifJHObHeOiOOOH CM H co 1—I GM --H TP r- rH TP in CO TP 00 o CO CO IO — o CO 00 00 CO CM co co TP Tp co o « TP co m CM m TP ai CM 00 TP o 00 o m 00 00 o CO CO io CO IO CO HH CM m co HH 00 HH1 CM I—" CM m Tp 1-H CM TP co I—(

•a S . o> S ^ « nj 3 u -5, sa o 'g £ S

ai 00 o co CO CM TP rH co co CO o a> ai CM TP ai co CO © IO CO m ai ai ri CO 00 TP T—1 IO 00 CO I> CM TP CO in CM tP o CM TP ai !—1 ©. TP io CM CO 00 CM CO 00 CM CM CO rH co" cm" cm"

00 O ^ 00

o TP rH 00 TP CO ai r^ co 00 eo_ CM TP i—i T io"r-" o" O T T M Í ) i—i CM Tt- o cm t*»ai o " i-»" —* V o m

< CO 0ì CM Oí • ï r A f f c « u W

O a O C •u « E

£

M Ol Ol

A S U X ? 4) -S O N l ö s

a

3

t^iooococMOTrco^oocot^^coooo^^Hto^-r^^HinO'-^'—ococM o co G\ io to in oo to r - 1-H i— m io oo to oí 1-H co aT i-T o" aT cm to i-T cm «-T co cm" »-T i-T cm cm oo oT -— in CO CM TP" aT T co" aT i cm" oo" co" in ai 00 n H TP i—< cm" TP" co" CM

CM CO lO CO co rH ai" CO* CO

S

o

"O

u

U vi O

-O n c c n

(J 01

E

1 1 1 o •o o ü « 3 o o -a •Jî 3 u o w w

Ol O CM tP_ M" IO CM

co TP t^ CO TP co IO 00 r^ ai m io o ai co co. co io" o" m" o" r-T CM

TP CM CO m o ai co 00 o m CO m co CM co ai CO CO CM o m tP io o m ai t^ CO ai 00 CO CM, CM. tP ai O co CO. m m CM ai oo" oo" rH H m" m" co" oo" r>-"oo" co" m" r^" co" oo" rH CM CO CO tP 00 ai i> CO o tP TP CM m Ol

CO CM o co o TP CO TP CO t^ CO m t^ TP CO I- ai ai ai CO CM 00 00. CM. TP ai.ai. n hh" I-H H r-«" co" co"

CO CO 00 oo" TP

00 I- 00 ai o CO TP 00 00 m ai CO CO 00 o ai r» 00 00 00 co CM -p 00 Ol rH TP CO CO CM 00 O . o. o 1M rH* rn" rH cm" cm" oo"

o

O

M

2 S C rt 2 c « 'S « « • C i

I c fe ,0 S ñ

i ^ M tO ó

'a

( j m M .a u S -o go « o • e o ï - S g « t u es Ö O » öO 5 s « 3 "2 g

U S T3 3 S c X •2 V J2 " « .. -3 .52 C" C 3 U t/1 c G S 5 ^ « M (0

c n SP -

O, o-'i « O

S u

a. I ^ > S Ì H H H 2 Z 2

* ai

®"

OO 00 ci in

Tp 00 in j—T CTI IO oo" eo

eo eo o. in t m ctì CM

ifìOiOOCOFNOOcOTfCÌOWifì^WOiOifìifltÙ' M co m o 1Í) 00 CO OiOcOifliiìOOOO^' -H CO CM ^ CM i

o o CM TT

o CM CO

o CM co. ci

i—'0>©comcMa>cvjincoTt (O t** CM if) 00 CM 1-H CM »-< CO O t** t**» ^O 00 O C"*» CM ^D i—« Tt h h co — i i—i r - «—i co co

TP to co CTÍ

CTI CM t^ m"

to t^ m"

f-tor-oocoooooor~ ~ - - — -iT) iD Ci CM o co (O 01 Qï Ifï e* O) o o CM CM N m Tf CM co Tf eO «—•

t

ooc-cùtoioco©© c£>oo©eocMcor--iOO CMf-LOin^COCMCOCMCM oT ~ oT ~ ~

1 < O W b > f l O O O O i iOOOO«-«t>-0 , )i-H^Ht>-i>0 «O 1-1 co OO^cOiftOiOOliOWW t^ OJ tû 00 Tf Tf co O 00 I

CO Tt co 00 to m 00 00 o . TP CM Ol to 1—1 m to in CI CTIco to CTICl i—r t—T in r~T K r-" m" CO o" Tp" oí Tp m CO

00 o CTI CJ 00 (M

I 1

I 1

00 CTI,-H f-i TP TP CM Ol TP Cl to CM TP 00 I—1 00 m co"

00 Tp 00. CM

Ol to to. — IH

00 Ol CO

O O o 00 to CM to 00 o TP r TP. TP m to CO. ,_r ,_r co" to" m m o m. 00. CM f—Tin TP" CO to CM

Ol m o to" 00 r^ eo" CO

CO 00 Ol K TP in oo"

CTI CTI Ol oo" 00 CM Tp" CM

O o I—1 r-" m co cm"

m eo rn" m CM cm"

CTI in oí eo o cm"

CM Ol 00 o cm"

m o to to Ol t^ to TP CTI Ol r—1 CM TP CM 00 00 00 CO l> — i 1 Ol CM c^ m 00 to Tp CO CO*CM*TP* to" 00* CO* o* o" o" Tl> CM m m CM CTI TP Ol K

to 00 TP r-" m CM m"

CTI to r^ 00* CM CO

to Ol to. in CO to in"

t^ 00 CI TP r^ 00 CM CJ eo Ol t^ CM CO o TP t^ to to m 00 TP 00 to m 00 eo CM O 00 00 CM o TP i—i 00 CTIm CI o. m CO eo to ^ TP" Cl oo"

o to to. ci TP

Ol to TP oí CM

Ol Ol to to" TP

tn V

tn

^

^

TP (M tp TP

Ol m TP O (M

O o o o o CO CI m" o Ol

c¡ CO oí Ol CJ tp"

CO O CTICJ m CM

O o o o TP O 00 CI oo" 00 TP. co" CI

O o 00 ^ o t^ CTI(M o 00 o 00 CTI00 CJ to. io CO. CTI.in r-* c i oo" t^-" Cl CO