DEA TV show, maybe we can watch and learn?

[irconfused]

I just watched that episode, nothing seemed too out of the ordinary. A CI who is selling info for a living gave them a solid lead, they investigated it (Do you honestly expect detroit cops to give a damn, let alone understand what is or is not constitutional?) and they ended up busting him, sounds pretty by the book to me.

If the guy was letting the smell escape let alone is doing enough shady shit to have the neighbors cheering on the cops he obviously an idiot and had it coming, not to mention probably trying to sell lbs to guys he doesn't know....


That being said watching a decent grow getting destroyed was tough to watch. Just makes me pray obama gets elected and sticks to his word stopping federal raids on med facilities. I can only imagine what would happen with Mcbush in office considering his wife has a few hundred million in beer money....

 

[ureapwhatusow]

DEA normaly doesnt go after grow ops

 

[kay gee bee]

I wonder if water-cooled lamps would eliminate the IR signature?

-kgb

 

[Ajunta Pall]

DEA normaly doesnt go after grow ops

Bullshit.

 

[British_Bulldog]

I wonder if water-cooled lamps would eliminate the IR signature?

-kgb

I would think not, and you still have to get all the excess heat out of the building somehow (thus another IR signature).

 

[ureapwhatusow]

Bullshit.

know your enemy

DEA tells you what there doing they are a government agency they have too

thats why it was 16 year vets biggers grow bust

cali may be different

here is ny nj threat assesement its a good read

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/18862/appenda.htm#ny


look up whats happening in your region

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/18862/index.htm

 

[ureapwhatusow]

here is the sum of their knowledge in what si going on america (form the weblinks above under marijuana)

Herion, Coke and Pharmies and Meth are blowing up

pot is the decline + they have no idea about internal prodcution because they cant guage it

Marijuana
Overview

The threat associated with marijuana trafficking and abuse is rising, largely the result of a growing demand for high-potency marijuana as well as a concomitant increase in the drug's availability. An increase in domestic cannabis cultivation by DTOs contributes to this threat, particularly the recent expansion of cultivation operations by Mexican, Asian, and Cuban DTOs. Mexican DTOs are expanding their networks by moving some of their operations from western to eastern states and to remote areas where cannabis has not been previously cultivated. Canada-based Asian DTOs and criminal groups are cultivating large quantities of high-potency marijuana in indoor sites in various regions of the country, and they are expanding their networks to control a greater portion of wholesale marijuana distribution. Cuban groups appear to have expanded their operations significantly in 2006 and 2007 from southern Florida to other southeastern states, particularly Georgia and North Carolina.
Strategic Findings

* Marijuana potency reached its highest recorded level in 2006, most likely attributable to improvements in outdoor and indoor cannabis cultivation methods.

* Indoor cannabis cultivation is increasing in some areas of the country as growers attempt to avoid outdoor eradication and attain higher profits through production of indoor-grown, high-potency marijuana.

* Cuban DTOs and criminal groups in the Southeast are expanding indoor grow operations northward to avoid detection and attain better access to drug markets.

* The involvement of Mexican DTOs in outdoor cannabis cultivation within the United States is expanding to eastern states--an apparent attempt to avoid heightened law enforcement pressure in western states.

* Mexican DTOs have relocated many of their cannabis cultivation operations in Mexico from traditional growing areas to more remote locations in central and northern Mexico, primarily to reduce the risk of eradication and gain more direct access to U.S. drug markets.

* Asian DTOs and criminal groups are increasingly becoming involved in marijuana trafficking in every region of the United States.

* Large quantities of marijuana seized along the Southwest Border--particularly in Arizona--are very likely the result of increased smuggling operations by Mexican DTOs and increased law enforcement efforts.

* The demand for marijuana appears to be relatively stable and declining slightly in some areas; however, many users now prefer and abuse higher-potency marijuana over commercial-grade marijuana.

Marijuana potency reached its highest recorded level in 2006, most likely attributable to improvements in outdoor and indoor cultivation methods. The University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project data for 2006 indicate that the average THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol)--the psychoactive chemical in marijuana--level in tested samples of marijuana increased to the highest-ever recorded level since the project's inception in 1975. According to project data, the average THC content of all tested marijuana samples nationwide increased to 8.77 percent in 2006, nearly doubling since 1996 (4.50%) (see Chart 3). Most of the marijuana available in the United States is lower-potency, commercial-grade marijuana produced in Mexico; however, the national average potency of marijuana appears to be increasing because of a rising prevalence in domestic drug markets of high-potency marijuana that is generally produced in Canada and the United States through improved and highly efficient outdoor and indoor cultivation methods. Independent growers--and, increasingly, criminal groups and DTOs--operating in Canada and the United States use advanced equipment and cultivation methods to produce a higher-potency crop, including using cloned starter plants and high-nutrient fertilizers. For example, indoor grow operations recently discovered in the Atlanta area (see text box) yielded marijuana with a THC content of over 18 percent.

To Top To Contents

Chart 3. Average Percentage of THC in Samples of Seized Marijuana, 1985-2006

The average THC content of marijuana nearly doubled between 1996 and 2006.

Source: The University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project.



The Number of Cuban-Operated Indoor Grows in Georgia Increased Sharply in Early 2007

Law enforcement reporting and seizure data indicate that the number of indoor cannabis grow sites operating in Georgia has increased sharply and that most seized sites were large, well-organized sites controlled by Cubans. According to the Atlanta HIDTA, over 86 residences in 14 counties in Georgia have been identified since January 2007 as indoor cannabis cultivation sites operated by Cubans. These indoor grow sites typically are large (some sites contain as many as 400 to 700 plants) and employ advanced growing techniques and equipment such as automatically timed grow lights, irrigation systems, carbon dioxide generators and high-nitrogen fertilizers that enable the groups to complete a harvest every 90 to 109 days or three to four crops per year.

Indoor cannabis cultivation is increasing in some areas of the country as growers attempt to avoid outdoor eradication and attain higher profits through production of indoor-grown, high-potency marijuana. Federal, state, and local law enforcement reporting indicates that vigorous outdoor cannabis eradication efforts have caused many marijuana producers, particularly Caucasian groups, to relocate indoors even in leading outdoor grow states such as California and Tennessee. In addition to the reduced risk of detection, indoor cannabis cultivators benefit from higher profits because cultivation is a year-round process with four to six harvests per year and controlled conditions that enable growers to produce high-quality marijuana that commands higher prices in most drug markets (see Table 5). These factors have contributed to a sharp increase in indoor cultivation reported by law enforcement, evidenced by an 85 percent increase nationwide in indoor plant eradication between 2000 and 2006 (see Table 5). Moreover, Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) data show that the number of indoor sites seized increased 38 percent from 2001 (2,379 sites) to 2006 (3,274).

Table 5. Domestic Cannabis Eradication, Outdoor and Indoor Plant Seizures, 2000-2006
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Outdoor 2,597,798 3,068,632 3,128,800 3,427,923 2,996,225 3,938,151 4,830,766
Indoor 217,105 236,128 213,040 223,183 203,896 270,935 400,892
Total 2,814,903 3,304,760 3,341,840 3,651,106 3,200,121 4,209,086 5,231,658

Source: Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program.

To Top To Contents

Cuban DTOs and criminal groups in the Southeast are expanding indoor grow operations northward to avoid detection and attain better access to drug markets. Cuban DTOs have cultivated high-potency cannabis at indoor grow sites in southeastern states--primarily in southern Florida--for several years; however, Cuban groups appear to have expanded their operations significantly in 2006 and 2007. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) reports that the number of indoor cannabis grows operated by Cuban DTOs in South Florida has increased sharply and is the leading cause of the increase in indoor grow seizures in Florida between 2001 (210) and 2006 (384). During that period, the influence of these Florida-based Cuban DTOs appears to have increased significantly, extending beyond southern Florida to other southeastern states. Intelligence derived from recent law enforcement investigations reveals that cannabis cultivation by Cuban DTOs has advanced from independent Cuban groups operating small grows for relatively small profit, to a seemingly coordinated effort by these groups to operate large-scale, indoor cannabis grow sites across Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. In fact, law enforcement reporting indicates that many--perhaps most--of the Cuban-operated, indoor cannabis cultivation sites in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina may be linked to a single Florida-based Cuban DTO. The unusually high number of Cuban-operated indoor cannabis grow site seizures in Georgia in early 2007 (see text box) will result in a sharp increase in the annual number of plants eradicated statewide in 2007, compared with previous years when indoor cultivation was relatively limited. For example, cannabis plant seizures will most likely exceed 10,000 plants in Georgia in 2007; according to DCE/SP data, only 1,160 indoor cannabis plants were eradicated in Georgia in 2006.

The involvement of Mexican DTOs in outdoor cannabis cultivation within the United States is expanding to eastern states--an apparent attempt to avoid heightened law enforcement pressure in western states. A number of Mexican DTOs that cultivate cannabis in the United States have relocated some of their operations to states outside of their principal operating areas in California, Washington, and Oregon, seemingly to avoid improved and intensified aerial detection and eradication in those states. This practice--first observed in 1999, but becoming much more prominent since 2005--initially involved relocation from northern California to remote areas of other western states. However, in 2005 Mexican DTOs greatly expanded their cultivation sites in Arizona. In 2005 and 2006, Mexican DTOs further expanded their operations, establishing outdoor cultivation sites east of the Mississippi River in Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, often in remote areas where cannabis had not been previously cultivated. Mexican cannabis growers operating large-scale grows east of the Mississippi River are increasingly being linked by law enforcement officials to Mexican DTOs15 operating in California and Mexico, suggesting a coordinated effort with respect to cannabis cultivation by Mexican DTOs that now spans the United States. Many of these groups maintain direct contact or affiliation with larger DTOs in the United States and Mexico and maintain a level of coordination among operating areas, moving labor and materials to the various sites as needed.

Mexican DTOs have relocated many of their cannabis cultivation operations in Mexico from traditional growing areas to more remote locations in central and northern Mexico, primarily to reduce the risk of eradication and gain more access to U.S. drug markets. According to the CIA Crime and Narcotics Center (CNC), Mexican DTOs have relocated many of their cannabis-growing operations from traditional growing areas in the states of Guerrero, Nayarit, and Michoacán to remote mountain areas of Durango, Sinaloa, and Sonora in central and northern Mexico since the 1990s. CNC reports that the relocation is most likely the result of sustained high levels of detection and eradication in traditional growing areas (see Table 6) as well as a desire on the part of the DTOs to reduce transportation costs to the Southwest Border and gain more direct access to drug markets throughout the United States.

Table 6. Cannabis Eradication in Mexico, in Hectares, 2001-2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
28,698 30,774 36,584 30,851 30,843 31,161

Source: Crime and Narcotics Center.

Asian DTOs and criminal groups are increasingly becoming involved in marijuana trafficking in every region of the United States. Asian DTO and criminal group involvement in indoor cannabis cultivation within the United States has increased dramatically since 2005; their cultivation operations are yielding significant quantities of high-potency marijuana. Asian DTOs and criminal groups, primarily ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese, have established cultivation operations in every Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) region of the country, including larger, coordinated operations in the Pacific and New England Regions. Some of the Canada-based Asian DTOs that cultivate cannabis at indoor grow sites are relocating from Canada to the United States, particularly to states near the Northern Border, including Washington, Oregon, northern California, and New Hampshire. Additionally, recent law enforcement reporting indicates that Asian DTOs and criminal groups have also expanded cultivation operations into southern California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Texas. For example, in March 2006 a sophisticated indoor cannabis grow operated by two individuals of Vietnamese descent was found in a house in a residential neighborhood in Montrose, a suburb of Houston, Texas, that contained approximately 1,000 cannabis plants worth an estimated $4 million as well as hydroponic equipment, a watering system, fertilizer, and insecticide. Every room in the house was used for cultivation, indicating that the primary purpose of the residence was cannabis cultivation.

To Top To Contents

Large quantities of marijuana seized along the Southwest Border--particularly in Arizona--are very likely the result of increased smuggling operations by Mexican DTOs and increased law enforcement efforts. Marijuana smuggling from Mexico--the primary foreign source for marijuana in the United States--through the Arizona-Mexico portion of the Southwest Border appears to be increasing. Cannabis cultivation in Mexico is very high (see Table 7), and most of the marijuana produced in that country is destined for U.S. drug markets. Although overall marijuana production in Mexico appears to have decreased since peaking in 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and NSS data indicate that the amount seized at or between POEs along the Southwest Border has remained relatively stable overall (see Table 8). Moreover, since 2001 marijuana seizures within the Tucson Border Patrol Sector16 have accounted for an increasing percentage of the overall marijuana seizures along the U.S.-Mexico border (see Table 9), and in 2006 the sector reported higher seizure totals than any other border sector (616,534 pounds). The increase in marijuana seizures in the Tucson Border Patrol Sector is quite likely the result of both a shift toward the sector by Mexican DTOs in response to previous law enforcement operations in other states and increased law enforcement efforts such as the Arizona Border Control Initiative, Secure Border Initiative, and Operation Jump Start as well as the allocation of additional Border Patrol resources to the Arizona-Mexico border.

Table 7. Cannabis Cultivation and Production in Mexico, 2001-2005
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Net Cultivation (hectares) 4,100 4,400 7,500 5,800 5,600
Potential Production (metric tons) 7,400 7,900 13,500 10,440 10,100

Source: Crime and Narcotics Center.



Table 8. Marijuana Seizures on the Southwest Border, in Kilograms, 2001-2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Southwest Border 1,108,654 1,117,790 1,208,244 1,106,680 1,032,835 1,115,710

Source: National Seizure System.



Table 9. Marijuana Seizures on the Southwest Border, Tucson Sector Only, in Pounds, 2001-2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
233,807 305,390 364,127 446,757 488,760 616,534

Source: Office of Border Control.

The demand for marijuana appears to be relatively stable and declining slightly in some areas; however, many users now prefer and abuse higher-potency marijuana over commercial-grade marijuana. Rates of use for marijuana are much higher than for any other illicit drug; however, rates of use appear to be declining slightly (see Table 1 and Table 2 in Appendix C). Anecdotal reporting indicates that marijuana users are demonstrating a preference for higher-potency marijuana. The user preference trending toward higher-potency marijuana is reported in most areas but is most apparent in the Southwest Region. For example, law enforcement officials in Dallas report that the availability of Mexican marijuana exceeds the demand, causing a surplus of the drug and retail price decreases in 2007 (from $450 to $350 per pound). During the same period, rising demand for high-potency marijuana pushed the retail price of the drug up 29 percent (from $3,100 to $4,000 per pound). This price increase occurred during a period of increasing high-potency marijuana availability, a condition that would normally result in lower prices.

To Top To Contents
Intelligence Gaps

The quantity of marijuana available for consumption in the United States remains largely unknown, primarily because of limited domestic production data. Domestic marijuana estimates are based on cannabis eradication and seizure statistics. However, these statistics are underreported--sometime greatly underreported--in some areas because reporting is voluntary for most agencies.

The degree to which marijuana is smuggled from Canada into the United States by Asian DTOs is somewhat unclear. Law enforcement and intelligence reporting indicates that Asian DTOs in Canada have significantly increased the amount of high-potency marijuana smuggled into the United States from Canada via the U.S.-Canada border since 2001. However, data on marijuana seizures at or between U.S.-Canada POEs do not appear to support this reporting. According to NSS data, the amount of marijuana seized at or between U.S.-Canada POEs fluctuated from 2001 through 2006 and does not show a clear trend, either increasing or decreasing (see Table 10). If marijuana smuggling from Canada into the United States were increasing to the degree indicated by law enforcement reporting, increasing marijuana seizures at the U.S.-Canada border would be an expected result.

Table 10. Marijuana Seizures at or Between U.S.-Canada Ports of Entry, in Kilograms, 2001-2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
3,549 7,851 10,288 4,147 9,458 4,170

Source: National Seizure System.

Predictive Estimates

Increased cannabis cultivation may result in reduced marijuana prices. The recent increases in cannabis cultivation and marijuana production within the United States coincide with the continued flow of marijuana from foreign sources, which may lead to market saturation in major markets. This saturation could reduce the price of the drug significantly.

DTOs and criminal groups that traditionally grew cannabis outdoors will most likely move operations indoors in order to avoid law enforcement detection and to reap higher profits. DTOs and criminal groups, including Caucasian and Mexican groups, will adapt to the increasing law enforcement pressure and improved detection capabilities associated with outdoor grow sites and will most likely shift operations indoors in order to better protect the crops. As such, the groups will produce higher-potency marijuana year-round, allowing for an exponential increase in profits derived. This shift to indoor cultivation is already being noted among law enforcement sources in several areas of the country, such as Appalachian states, where some Caucasian groups have already shifted operations indoors. (However, it is plausible primarily because of the higher profit margins that the next significant shift from outdoor to indoor cultivation will be among Mexican DTOs and criminal groups--the largest producers and distributors of domestically produced marijuana.)
End Notes

15. These Mexican DTOs are composed of Mexican nationals, who may or may not be associated with a cartel in Mexico.
16. The Tucson Border Patrol Sector includes all of Arizona except for Yuma, La Paz, and Mohave Counties.



Marijuana
Overview

The threat associated with marijuana trafficking and abuse is rising, largely the result of a growing demand for high-potency marijuana as well as a concomitant increase in the drug's availability. An increase in domestic cannabis cultivation by DTOs contributes to this threat, particularly the recent expansion of cultivation operations by Mexican, Asian, and Cuban DTOs. Mexican DTOs are expanding their networks by moving some of their operations from western to eastern states and to remote areas where cannabis has not been previously cultivated. Canada-based Asian DTOs and criminal groups are cultivating large quantities of high-potency marijuana in indoor sites in various regions of the country, and they are expanding their networks to control a greater portion of wholesale marijuana distribution. Cuban groups appear to have expanded their operations significantly in 2006 and 2007 from southern Florida to other southeastern states, particularly Georgia and North Carolina.
Strategic Findings

* Marijuana potency reached its highest recorded level in 2006, most likely attributable to improvements in outdoor and indoor cannabis cultivation methods.

* Indoor cannabis cultivation is increasing in some areas of the country as growers attempt to avoid outdoor eradication and attain higher profits through production of indoor-grown, high-potency marijuana.

* Cuban DTOs and criminal groups in the Southeast are expanding indoor grow operations northward to avoid detection and attain better access to drug markets.

* The involvement of Mexican DTOs in outdoor cannabis cultivation within the United States is expanding to eastern states--an apparent attempt to avoid heightened law enforcement pressure in western states.

* Mexican DTOs have relocated many of their cannabis cultivation operations in Mexico from traditional growing areas to more remote locations in central and northern Mexico, primarily to reduce the risk of eradication and gain more direct access to U.S. drug markets.

* Asian DTOs and criminal groups are increasingly becoming involved in marijuana trafficking in every region of the United States.

* Large quantities of marijuana seized along the Southwest Border--particularly in Arizona--are very likely the result of increased smuggling operations by Mexican DTOs and increased law enforcement efforts.

* The demand for marijuana appears to be relatively stable and declining slightly in some areas; however, many users now prefer and abuse higher-potency marijuana over commercial-grade marijuana.

Marijuana potency reached its highest recorded level in 2006, most likely attributable to improvements in outdoor and indoor cultivation methods. The University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project data for 2006 indicate that the average THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol)--the psychoactive chemical in marijuana--level in tested samples of marijuana increased to the highest-ever recorded level since the project's inception in 1975. According to project data, the average THC content of all tested marijuana samples nationwide increased to 8.77 percent in 2006, nearly doubling since 1996 (4.50%) (see Chart 3). Most of the marijuana available in the United States is lower-potency, commercial-grade marijuana produced in Mexico; however, the national average potency of marijuana appears to be increasing because of a rising prevalence in domestic drug markets of high-potency marijuana that is generally produced in Canada and the United States through improved and highly efficient outdoor and indoor cultivation methods. Independent growers--and, increasingly, criminal groups and DTOs--operating in Canada and the United States use advanced equipment and cultivation methods to produce a higher-potency crop, including using cloned starter plants and high-nutrient fertilizers. For example, indoor grow operations recently discovered in the Atlanta area (see text box) yielded marijuana with a THC content of over 18 percent.

To Top To Contents

Chart 3. Average Percentage of THC in Samples of Seized Marijuana, 1985-2006

The average THC content of marijuana nearly doubled between 1996 and 2006.

Source: The University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project.



The Number of Cuban-Operated Indoor Grows in Georgia Increased Sharply in Early 2007

Law enforcement reporting and seizure data indicate that the number of indoor cannabis grow sites operating in Georgia has increased sharply and that most seized sites were large, well-organized sites controlled by Cubans. According to the Atlanta HIDTA, over 86 residences in 14 counties in Georgia have been identified since January 2007 as indoor cannabis cultivation sites operated by Cubans. These indoor grow sites typically are large (some sites contain as many as 400 to 700 plants) and employ advanced growing techniques and equipment such as automatically timed grow lights, irrigation systems, carbon dioxide generators and high-nitrogen fertilizers that enable the groups to complete a harvest every 90 to 109 days or three to four crops per year.

Indoor cannabis cultivation is increasing in some areas of the country as growers attempt to avoid outdoor eradication and attain higher profits through production of indoor-grown, high-potency marijuana. Federal, state, and local law enforcement reporting indicates that vigorous outdoor cannabis eradication efforts have caused many marijuana producers, particularly Caucasian groups, to relocate indoors even in leading outdoor grow states such as California and Tennessee. In addition to the reduced risk of detection, indoor cannabis cultivators benefit from higher profits because cultivation is a year-round process with four to six harvests per year and controlled conditions that enable growers to produce high-quality marijuana that commands higher prices in most drug markets (see Table 5). These factors have contributed to a sharp increase in indoor cultivation reported by law enforcement, evidenced by an 85 percent increase nationwide in indoor plant eradication between 2000 and 2006 (see Table 5). Moreover, Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) data show that the number of indoor sites seized increased 38 percent from 2001 (2,379 sites) to 2006 (3,274).

Table 5. Domestic Cannabis Eradication, Outdoor and Indoor Plant Seizures, 2000-2006
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Outdoor 2,597,798 3,068,632 3,128,800 3,427,923 2,996,225 3,938,151 4,830,766
Indoor 217,105 236,128 213,040 223,183 203,896 270,935 400,892
Total 2,814,903 3,304,760 3,341,840 3,651,106 3,200,121 4,209,086 5,231,658

Source: Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program.

To Top To Contents

Cuban DTOs and criminal groups in the Southeast are expanding indoor grow operations northward to avoid detection and attain better access to drug markets. Cuban DTOs have cultivated high-potency cannabis at indoor grow sites in southeastern states--primarily in southern Florida--for several years; however, Cuban groups appear to have expanded their operations significantly in 2006 and 2007. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) reports that the number of indoor cannabis grows operated by Cuban DTOs in South Florida has increased sharply and is the leading cause of the increase in indoor grow seizures in Florida between 2001 (210) and 2006 (384). During that period, the influence of these Florida-based Cuban DTOs appears to have increased significantly, extending beyond southern Florida to other southeastern states. Intelligence derived from recent law enforcement investigations reveals that cannabis cultivation by Cuban DTOs has advanced from independent Cuban groups operating small grows for relatively small profit, to a seemingly coordinated effort by these groups to operate large-scale, indoor cannabis grow sites across Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. In fact, law enforcement reporting indicates that many--perhaps most--of the Cuban-operated, indoor cannabis cultivation sites in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina may be linked to a single Florida-based Cuban DTO. The unusually high number of Cuban-operated indoor cannabis grow site seizures in Georgia in early 2007 (see text box) will result in a sharp increase in the annual number of plants eradicated statewide in 2007, compared with previous years when indoor cultivation was relatively limited. For example, cannabis plant seizures will most likely exceed 10,000 plants in Georgia in 2007; according to DCE/SP data, only 1,160 indoor cannabis plants were eradicated in Georgia in 2006.

The involvement of Mexican DTOs in outdoor cannabis cultivation within the United States is expanding to eastern states--an apparent attempt to avoid heightened law enforcement pressure in western states. A number of Mexican DTOs that cultivate cannabis in the United States have relocated some of their operations to states outside of their principal operating areas in California, Washington, and Oregon, seemingly to avoid improved and intensified aerial detection and eradication in those states. This practice--first observed in 1999, but becoming much more prominent since 2005--initially involved relocation from northern California to remote areas of other western states. However, in 2005 Mexican DTOs greatly expanded their cultivation sites in Arizona. In 2005 and 2006, Mexican DTOs further expanded their operations, establishing outdoor cultivation sites east of the Mississippi River in Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, often in remote areas where cannabis had not been previously cultivated. Mexican cannabis growers operating large-scale grows east of the Mississippi River are increasingly being linked by law enforcement officials to Mexican DTOs15 operating in California and Mexico, suggesting a coordinated effort with respect to cannabis cultivation by Mexican DTOs that now spans the United States. Many of these groups maintain direct contact or affiliation with larger DTOs in the United States and Mexico and maintain a level of coordination among operating areas, moving labor and materials to the various sites as needed.

Mexican DTOs have relocated many of their cannabis cultivation operations in Mexico from traditional growing areas to more remote locations in central and northern Mexico, primarily to reduce the risk of eradication and gain more access to U.S. drug markets. According to the CIA Crime and Narcotics Center (CNC), Mexican DTOs have relocated many of their cannabis-growing operations from traditional growing areas in the states of Guerrero, Nayarit, and Michoacán to remote mountain areas of Durango, Sinaloa, and Sonora in central and northern Mexico since the 1990s. CNC reports that the relocation is most likely the result of sustained high levels of detection and eradication in traditional growing areas (see Table 6) as well as a desire on the part of the DTOs to reduce transportation costs to the Southwest Border and gain more direct access to drug markets throughout the United States.

Table 6. Cannabis Eradication in Mexico, in Hectares, 2001-2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
28,698 30,774 36,584 30,851 30,843 31,161

Source: Crime and Narcotics Center.

Asian DTOs and criminal groups are increasingly becoming involved in marijuana trafficking in every region of the United States. Asian DTO and criminal group involvement in indoor cannabis cultivation within the United States has increased dramatically since 2005; their cultivation operations are yielding significant quantities of high-potency marijuana. Asian DTOs and criminal groups, primarily ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese, have established cultivation operations in every Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) region of the country, including larger, coordinated operations in the Pacific and New England Regions. Some of the Canada-based Asian DTOs that cultivate cannabis at indoor grow sites are relocating from Canada to the United States, particularly to states near the Northern Border, including Washington, Oregon, northern California, and New Hampshire. Additionally, recent law enforcement reporting indicates that Asian DTOs and criminal groups have also expanded cultivation operations into southern California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Texas. For example, in March 2006 a sophisticated indoor cannabis grow operated by two individuals of Vietnamese descent was found in a house in a residential neighborhood in Montrose, a suburb of Houston, Texas, that contained approximately 1,000 cannabis plants worth an estimated $4 million as well as hydroponic equipment, a watering system, fertilizer, and insecticide. Every room in the house was used for cultivation, indicating that the primary purpose of the residence was cannabis cultivation.

To Top To Contents

Large quantities of marijuana seized along the Southwest Border--particularly in Arizona--are very likely the result of increased smuggling operations by Mexican DTOs and increased law enforcement efforts. Marijuana smuggling from Mexico--the primary foreign source for marijuana in the United States--through the Arizona-Mexico portion of the Southwest Border appears to be increasing. Cannabis cultivation in Mexico is very high (see Table 7), and most of the marijuana produced in that country is destined for U.S. drug markets. Although overall marijuana production in Mexico appears to have decreased since peaking in 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and NSS data indicate that the amount seized at or between POEs along the Southwest Border has remained relatively stable overall (see Table 8). Moreover, since 2001 marijuana seizures within the Tucson Border Patrol Sector16 have accounted for an increasing percentage of the overall marijuana seizures along the U.S.-Mexico border (see Table 9), and in 2006 the sector reported higher seizure totals than any other border sector (616,534 pounds). The increase in marijuana seizures in the Tucson Border Patrol Sector is quite likely the result of both a shift toward the sector by Mexican DTOs in response to previous law enforcement operations in other states and increased law enforcement efforts such as the Arizona Border Control Initiative, Secure Border Initiative, and Operation Jump Start as well as the allocation of additional Border Patrol resources to the Arizona-Mexico border.

Table 7. Cannabis Cultivation and Production in Mexico, 2001-2005
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Net Cultivation (hectares) 4,100 4,400 7,500 5,800 5,600
Potential Production (metric tons) 7,400 7,900 13,500 10,440 10,100

Source: Crime and Narcotics Center.



Table 8. Marijuana Seizures on the Southwest Border, in Kilograms, 2001-2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Southwest Border 1,108,654 1,117,790 1,208,244 1,106,680 1,032,835 1,115,710

Source: National Seizure System.



Table 9. Marijuana Seizures on the Southwest Border, Tucson Sector Only, in Pounds, 2001-2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
233,807 305,390 364,127 446,757 488,760 616,534

Source: Office of Border Control.

The demand for marijuana appears to be relatively stable and declining slightly in some areas; however, many users now prefer and abuse higher-potency marijuana over commercial-grade marijuana. Rates of use for marijuana are much higher than for any other illicit drug; however, rates of use appear to be declining slightly (see Table 1 and Table 2 in Appendix C). Anecdotal reporting indicates that marijuana users are demonstrating a preference for higher-potency marijuana. The user preference trending toward higher-potency marijuana is reported in most areas but is most apparent in the Southwest Region. For example, law enforcement officials in Dallas report that the availability of Mexican marijuana exceeds the demand, causing a surplus of the drug and retail price decreases in 2007 (from $450 to $350 per pound). During the same period, rising demand for high-potency marijuana pushed the retail price of the drug up 29 percent (from $3,100 to $4,000 per pound). This price increase occurred during a period of increasing high-potency marijuana availability, a condition that would normally result in lower prices.

To Top To Contents
Intelligence Gaps

The quantity of marijuana available for consumption in the United States remains largely unknown, primarily because of limited domestic production data. Domestic marijuana estimates are based on cannabis eradication and seizure statistics. However, these statistics are underreported--sometime greatly underreported--in some areas because reporting is voluntary for most agencies.

The degree to which marijuana is smuggled from Canada into the United States by Asian DTOs is somewhat unclear. Law enforcement and intelligence reporting indicates that Asian DTOs in Canada have significantly increased the amount of high-potency marijuana smuggled into the United States from Canada via the U.S.-Canada border since 2001. However, data on marijuana seizures at or between U.S.-Canada POEs do not appear to support this reporting. According to NSS data, the amount of marijuana seized at or between U.S.-Canada POEs fluctuated from 2001 through 2006 and does not show a clear trend, either increasing or decreasing (see Table 10). If marijuana smuggling from Canada into the United States were increasing to the degree indicated by law enforcement reporting, increasing marijuana seizures at the U.S.-Canada border would be an expected result.

Table 10. Marijuana Seizures at or Between U.S.-Canada Ports of Entry, in Kilograms, 2001-2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
3,549 7,851 10,288 4,147 9,458 4,170

Source: National Seizure System.

Predictive Estimates

Increased cannabis cultivation may result in reduced marijuana prices. The recent increases in cannabis cultivation and marijuana production within the United States coincide with the continued flow of marijuana from foreign sources, which may lead to market saturation in major markets. This saturation could reduce the price of the drug significantly.

DTOs and criminal groups that traditionally grew cannabis outdoors will most likely move operations indoors in order to avoid law enforcement detection and to reap higher profits. DTOs and criminal groups, including Caucasian and Mexican groups, will adapt to the increasing law enforcement pressure and improved detection capabilities associated with outdoor grow sites and will most likely shift operations indoors in order to better protect the crops. As such, the groups will produce higher-potency marijuana year-round, allowing for an exponential increase in profits derived. This shift to indoor cultivation is already being noted among law enforcement sources in several areas of the country, such as Appalachian states, where some Caucasian groups have already shifted operations indoors. (However, it is plausible primarily because of the higher profit margins that the next significant shift from outdoor to indoor cultivation will be among Mexican DTOs and criminal groups--the largest producers and distributors of domestically produced marijuana.)
End Notes

15. These Mexican DTOs are composed of Mexican nationals, who may or may not be associated with a cartel in Mexico.
16. The Tucson Border Patrol Sector includes all of Arizona except for Yuma, La Paz, and Mohave Counties.

 

[Julian]

Damn dude, ever hear of a link?.....

Yeah, I saw that one, and, fuck, if the others weren't enough?.......show's a fuckin joke, personally, my curiosity has been fulfilled. Just as expected. Bullshit.

(To people who actually want to learn something?.....spend time reading through cases, warrants, etc......single case will teach you more than any of those shows ever will.......)

And, to anyone who hasn't seen it?....I think I can summarize it simply:
1.Dude's running like a 6-8k in vacant rental.....that says it all (space, volume, etc)

Comments made, in no particular order:
1. "Major trafficking organization disabled, serving possibly 100 people......."
2. "1k's, used for 4 plants per light" (although half of room had maybe 24 per, etc)
3. "value is 10x that of regular"......(my world, regular is around 16 more or less, nice 3,3200, etc....)
4. "Most advanced" some had seen in 16yrs.......was far from...was ghetto set up.......in that case, literally ......

usual bullshit.......talking like they know something.......words spoken show more clueless than they'll ever know......

serving 100 people......yeah, if dude was dumping it in fuckin grams...

Bullshit about an "ex felon criminal mastermind running a drug trafficking network"...(guy was fuckin running 6-8k.....and far from efficient also....)

 

[darthvapor]

dea is not accountable to anybody including the people or senate . Nobody knows how much they spend,or what they seize. Their books are closed like the militarys. They were established by that piece of sh*t richard nixon. That should sum it up Nothing but crap can come from crap

 

[SpacedCWBY]

One thing made me feel better. The one guy said that they're always lookin' for the source. And for everything they already had on the guy, I'm sure the FLIR wouldn't be an issue. Kinda bogus either way, but whatever. Gonna be a long time coming I'm afraid before I don't have to be afraid.

 

[cordobayumyum]

I think it would held reduce the heat signature

I think it would held reduce the heat signature

I wonder if water-cooled lamps would eliminate the IR signature?

-kgb

The first hit on "water cooled reflector" on google brings up a study titled "Heat dissipation in water-cooled reflectors" that concluded that "through use of a water-cooled reflector, the generation of convective and conductive heat and longwave radiation from the reflector can be reduced, without reduction of PAR."

One advantage of an liquid-cooled reflector is its ability to operate as a closed system without having to exhaust any hot material where it might be picked up on FLIR.

Although as others mentioned, a large rez is required even for lamps as small as 400w, so it might require much more planning, and possibly construction, to run many watts.

 

[kay gee bee]

One advantage of an liquid-cooled reflector is its ability to operate as a closed system without having to exhaust any hot material where it might be picked up on FLIR.

Although as others mentioned, a large rez is required even for lamps as small as 400w, so it might require much more planning, and possibly construction, to run many watts.

Yep, you can channel the heat away from the central source (the lamps) to somewhere more innocuous. Actually, the cooling res doesn't necessarily need to be that huge...55 gal drum with a chiller will cover two 1kw lamps nicely. If you route the cooling lines to a swimming pool or large outside water source, you could run way more...I've heard of a guy running 20kw into a swimming pool without a problem. Way of the future, if you ask me!

-kgb

 

[green_tea]

if your worreid about heat signatures, why dont you buy a water AC?

these are AC units that dump the heat they take out of the air into the water. based on the waters temp, and the temp you want the room, they can use anywhere from 1Gpm to maybe 10gpm

(a 2ton water cooled ac unit uses ~ 2-6GPM going by their specs)

so in a month its using 173000 gallons of water, is that a lot for residential? (id say so)

so these would be good for a commercial space, or if you had a stream near you that you could take water from.

of course if you are in a commercial space, there is nothing unusual about using this much water. (since server data centers normally use water cooled AC units)

 

[whodi]

On one of the episodes, I noticed the DEA told the Confidential informant to not front the 'drug dealer' money.

So what happens if the dealer asks for the "CI" to front him the money.. even though the dealer didn't need the money up front... could they not get enough evidence if they front money?

 

[cordobayumyum]

I don't know which episode you are referring to but I suspect that the DEA prefers not to front money because they risk losing a solid charge if the defendant decides not to deliver the narcotics. Maybe it's different when dealing with large quantities, but with small transactions it would seem abnormal for the purchaser to front the money before receiving the drugs. By giving money upfront the buyer gives control to the dealer, who might decide to simply walk away with the money without delivering the goods.

 

[indicapimp]

I don't know which episode you are referring to but I suspect that the DEA prefers not to front money because they risk losing a solid charge if the defendant decides not to deliver the narcotics. Maybe it's different when dealing with large quantities, but with small transactions it would seem abnormal for the purchaser to front the money before receiving the drugs. By giving money upfront the buyer gives control to the dealer, who might decide to simply walk away with the money without delivering the goods.

I don't think the DEA really cares about the money, it was probably Drug Money in the first place. Second, the guy (Undercover DEA Agent) buying X from the main supplier said" it doesn't matter if he shows up at this point with the drugs, we have him on conspiracy charges alone after talking to him direct on the phone." Greed again got this guy, buy a little and push to deal direct from the source @ bigger quantities, Cookie cutter drug bust.

enough said

 

[Ajunta Pall]

I don't know which episode you are referring to but I suspect that the DEA prefers not to front money because they risk losing a solid charge if the defendant decides not to deliver the narcotics. Maybe it's different when dealing with large quantities, but with small transactions it would seem abnormal for the purchaser to front the money before receiving the drugs. By giving money upfront the buyer gives control to the dealer, who might decide to simply walk away with the money without delivering the goods.

Then they will get you with conspiracy or some other bullshit charge.

 

[Daemon]

Anyone have a working link to that Grow Bust episode? I have a hard time watching that show because I lived/"played" in many of the areas they are in for quite a while. Oh the D.......

 

[Bake_McBride]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8BX-DWBJls

 

[asher1er]

i feel you but in one county in fl the buster 47 houses and only 9 had plants in them. So the kick down any door the want. The are hoping you are scared and just make a plea deal and it does not go to court.

People in Fl aint that scared One Mother n daughter came out on the news with help me howard, they are sueing the department and howard said they NEED a warrant so theres no special events that willc lear them from one.

What source said only 9 houses had plants in them? That source is way wrong...