Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
January 5, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
September 18, 1972
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7.pdf3.28 MB
A- W Fpr lylUIG2 1 "rliC1A 4 A 11M! A41 0003-7 ON U.S. SECURITY HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 -Price 45 cents Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina PHILIP A. HART, Michigan EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts BIRCH BAYH, Indiana QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN V. TUNNEY, California ROMAN L. HRU SKA, Nebraska HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania STROM THURMOND, South Carolina MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jn., Maryland EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida SUBCOMMITTEE To INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina STROM THURMOND, South Carolina BIRCH BAYH, Indiana MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida J. G. SoURWINB, Chief Counsel SAMUEL J. SCOTT, Associate Counsel WARREN LITTMAN, Associate Counsel JOHN R. NORPEL, Director of Research ALFONSO L. TARABOCHIA, Chief Investigator Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 CONTENTS Statement of- Nelson Gross, Senior Adviser and Coordinator f I Page, or nternational Narcotics Matters, Department of State John E I ll 253 . ngerso , Director, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, U.S. Department of Justice_______________________ Eu en T R 271 g e . ossides, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Enforce_ ment, Tariff and Trade Affairs, and Operations)_________________ 281 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 WORLD DRUG TRAFFIC AND ITS IMPACT ON U.S. SECURITY MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1972 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE To INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:30 a.m. in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland (chair- man) presiding. Present : Senators Eastland and Gurney. Also present : J. G. Sourwine, chief counsel. Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, these other witnesses were scheduled to testify. They are Eugene T. Rossides, John E. Ingersoll, and Nelson Gross. We have their statements, which should be made part of the record. May they be ordered printed as though read? Senator GURNEY. So ordered. (The statements referred to are printed below:) The subcommittee will recess, subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.) * * * * * * * STATEMENT OF NELSON GROSS, SENIOR ADVISER AND COORDI- NATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS MATTERS, DEPART- MENT OF STATE The President called for an accelerated attack on the international aspects of the drug abuse problem in his message to the Congress on June 17,1971, when he stated : No serious attack on our national drug problem can ignore the international implications of such an effort, nor can the domestic effort succeed without at- tacking the problem on an international plane. The President's call resulted in the formation of the Cabinet Com- mittee on International Narcotics Control in September 1971. That committee, chaired by the Secretary of State William Rogers, provides for interagency coordination of an overall program to strengthen nar- cotics control from Cabinet level down, throughout the executive (253) Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 branch. The State Department's role has been crystalized, and there has been a sharp increase in activity in all of its bureaus. Not only was my office, that of Senior Adviser to the Secretary and Coordinator for International Narcotics Matters created, but in addi- tion, narcotics control coordinators were designated for all of the Department's geographic and the pertinent functional bureaus. Each of the five geographic bureaus chairs an Inter-Agency Narcotics Con- trol Committee. To complement the mobilizing of resources in Washington, narcotics control coordinators have been designated at virtually all foreign posts. The coordinators operate within the framework of a country team which utilizes the expertise of all appropriate agencies represented at the mission. For those countries having a current or potential involvement in the production, processing, or transiting of illicit hard drugs, narcotics control action plans have been developed. The Ambassador has been charged with the ultimate responsibility of developing, implementing, and monitoring the action plans, a re- sponsibility placed upon him directly by the President. Pertinent excerpts of a Presidential letter sent in February to the chiefs of mission in 69 countries read as follows : A successful fight against drug abuse will require the cooperation of all nations. For this reason I have made effective narcotics control a primary foreign policy objective of the United States. The State Department's senior adviser and coordinator for international narcotics matters, Mr. Nelson Gross, and other administration officials have attempted to convey to foreign governments and to our overseas diplomatic missions the determination of the United States to take the necessary steps in cooperation with others to bring narcotics and other dangerous drugs under effective control. These efforts are beginning to bear fruit. I am particularly gratified by the courageous decision of the Turkish Government to ban opium cultivation, by the results of Operal ion Cooperation in Mexico, and by recent successes in narcotics enforcement in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. Still, much remains to, be done. In many nations narcotics law enforcement is still in its infancy. Better narcotics intelligence is required almost everywhere. Narcotics control action plans have now been drafted by 57 missions. The key to carrying out these plans effectively is to convince the leaders of countries where production and trafficking take place to commit their governments to attacking the narcotics problem with urgency and determination. Your assistance will be critical in this effort. To begin with, we need your advice on how best to obtain the requisite political commitment from the govern- ment to which you are accredited. If you have not already given us your views, we shall appreciate receiving them promptly. The efforts undertaken by our chiefs of mission within the structure of the Cabinet committee apparatus have been unique. By elevating the subject of narcotics control to a top foreign policy issue, the President has enabled the Ambassadors to deal continuously with this problem at the very highest levels with foreign governments. Charged as they have been, the chiefs of mission and all members of their country teams have performed with diligence and dedication. While no one can measure success in this field, some appreciable impact has already been felt, and I am certain that the effort expended thus far will produce favorable results in the succeeding months. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 255 Clearly this effort led by the President has galvanized commitments from nations around the world as never before. Our missions overseas began to yield cooperative undertakings essential to a worldwide attack on illicit drugs. The United States made it clear that it could not do the job alone, and the critical necessity for drawing together coopera- tive programs for narcotics control became universally recognized. It quickly became necessary for our Government to help increase the capability of foreign governments to immobilize the traffickers and cut the supply of narcotics. The result was the development of the previously mentioned narcotics control action plans for key countries around the world. To seek the very best results, law enforcement survey teams have been sent to selected countries, regional conferences of narcotics coordinators have been held throughout the world, and there has been a simultaneous expansion of BNDD overseas activities, foreign customs cooperation and assistance, and establishment of CIA responsibility for narcotics intelligence coordination. The in- creased capability being promoted is in accordance with the Cabinet committee priorities assigned to intelligence collection and enforce- ment activities abroad. The attention drawn to this problem by our own officials, together with an increasing awareness of other governments to the danger of spreading drug abuse, has unquestionably led to more active in- ternational cooperation. The very fact that we have our own U.S. Government agents operating within the jurisdiction of foreign gov- ernments is a strong sign of cooperation. When looked at from that point of view, it can be recognized quickly that accepting our agents bespeaks firm and unswerving support. This does not mean that we can expect resounding results overnight. We must acknowledge that in many cases we are dealing with un- sophisticated equipment and untrained personnel. Surely if the United States cannot stop the trafficking at its own borders, we must understand that a developing country will have even greater difficulty in preventing itself from becoming a point of transit for narcotics. Yet the beginnings have been made and the results have been significant. There have been seizures of greater importance and with increasing regularity throughout the world. Arrests of important figures have been made. High-level traffickers have been extradited and put in prison. Five heroin laboratories in the Marseilles area of France have been seized during 1972. The Turkish ban on opium cultivation has been implemented resolutely, though Turkish officials have had to face continuing criticism. Thus measurable steps have been generated toward bilateral cooperation. It would be useful at this point to discuss the situation as we now see it in the key countries in illicit production and/or trafficking. First, our two neighbors-Canada and Mexico. Canada In a sense the drug abuse problem in Canada parallels that of the United States. Canadian statistics show significant increases over the past 5 years in the use of marihuana, hashish, and psychotropics. Of particular concern at the present time is an apparent substantial in- Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 256 crease in the use of heroin in major cities, notably Vancouver, Toron- to, and Montreal. In March 1972, official Canadian sources estimated that there were 16,000 heroin addicts in Canada, approximately five times the 3,500 addicts estimated in 1966. Total arrests for drug offenses were about 14,000 in 1970 and exceeded 17,000 in 1971. Montreal and Toronto are recognized as major transshipment points for drugs-particularly heroin-destined for the larger U.S. market. Canadian enforcement problems are therefore much greater and more difficult than the incidence of illicit use in the country would indicate. The use of Montreal and Toronto as entrepots also illustrates the need for very close and forthright cooperation between United States and Canadian authorities. As might be expected, there is close cooperation at all levels between interested Canadian and United States agencies. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police maintains a three-man staff attached to the Embassy to handle daily liaison in Washington. Similarly, there is a BNDD liaison office, to which an officer of the Bureau of Customs is at- tached, for liaison in Montreal. Additional BNDD liaison offices have recently been established in Toronto and Vancouver and the Bureau of Customs has recently established an additional liaison office in Ottawa. Mention should also be made of the excellent work- in level relationship between United States and Canadian officials at border crossing points. High level cooperation between the two countries is also good. In September 1971, a U.S. group headed by BNDD Director Ingersoll journeyed to Ottawa for a consultative meeting with a Canadian group headed by Dr. R. A. Chapman, Special Adviser to the Deputy Minister, Department of National Health and Welfare. In October 1971, attripartite meeting at the Deputy Attorney General level con- sidered enforcement questions of possible joint interest to the United States, Canada, and Mexico. A tripartite meeting of Attorneys- General was held at Mexico City in March 1972, at which time the three governments reaffirmed their commitment to cooperation in antidrug efforts. The United States and Mexico have accepted a Canadian invitation to another meeting at the Deputy Attorney- General level in October 1972. Planning is now underway for in- creased United States-Canadian cooperation and coordination in drug research including seminars to bring together leading researchers of the two countries. Canada has participated since November 1970 with the United States and France in periodic meetings of the drug law enforcement agencies of the three countries. Canada worked closely with the United States at the United Na- tions conference to amend the Single Convention and was one of 71 nations voting to approve the amending protocol. Canada has con- tributed $400,000 to the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Con- trol, the largest contribution after that of the United States. Canada is an active member of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/77: CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Mexico Mexico is the source of nearly all the high-potency marihuana and about 10 percent of the heroin consumed. in the United States. In addition, Mexico is increasingly being used as a transit country by international drug traffickers, particularly for heroin and cocaine. Interdiction of illicit narcotics traffic at the border can only control a portion of this traffic. Complementary efforts must be made to eradi- cate marihuana and opium poppy production at their source. In October 1969, the friction created by "Operation Intercept" was converted into the harmonious and relatively successful "Operation Cooperation." We are gratified that President Echeverria and other high Mexican Government officials are keenly aware of the narcotics problem and are expending considerable human and material resources in a broad scale program of cooperation with the United States in narcotics control. In its efforts to eradicate opium poppies and mari huana the Mexican Government is using light planes and helicopters to spot growing areas. Army ground troops are dispatched to destroy the fields and apprehend illegal growers. As many as 12,000 soldiers may be employed in this manner at any given time. In addition, Mexican laws concerning drug abuse are considerably more severe than those in the United States, and a, recent change in the Agrarian Code has made the illegal growing of marihuana or opium poppies an offense punishable by fine, imprisonment, or confiscation of the land involved. More recently still Mexico has outlawed production of am- phetamine drugs. Several examples of cooperation can he cited. At the beginning of Operation Cooperation the, United States made available to Mexico $1 million to be used for material assistance in narcotics control. The money was used to purchase helicopters and light aircraft,. Negotia tions are nearly complete for an agreement which will provide an additional $51.3 million package of material and training assistance, including helicopters, communications equipment, and weapons. BNDD and U.S. Customs personnel stationed in Mexico cooperate routinely with Mexican narcotics authorities and the exchange of in- telligence and in operations directed against the drug traffic; destruc- tion of growing areas and seizures of heroin, cocaine, and marihuana are large and are increasing. In keeping with the agreement to main- tain high-level consultations between the two countries, the Mexican and U.S. Attorneys-General, their Deputies and their staffs hold pe- riodic narcotics talks, alternately in Washington and Mexico City. Canada has now added her participation, making the consultations tripartite. Two such tripartite talks have been held, in October 1971 and in March 1972; we expect another meeting before the end of this year. Panama Because of her crossroads location, which provides ready access to a wide variety of air and sea transportation routes, and her tradition of permitting trade to move freely in and out of the country, Panama's Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 258 role as'' a transshipment point for international narcotics smuggling has in recent years become a cause of increasing U.S. concern. Two recent cases served to focus our attention on the need to help strengthen Panama's efforts in controlling drug traffic. One of these was the arrest in the Canal Zone of Joaquin Him Gonzalez, a Pana- manian air traffic controller. He was subsequently charged with con- spiring to smuggle heroin into the United States. A second case was the seizure of 180 pounds of heroin on July 8, 1971 when Rafael A. Richard, Jr., son of the Panamanian Ambassador to Taiwan, was arrested at JFK Airport in New York. Factors which have tended to hamper Panamanian efforts to control the narcotics traffic are (1) Panama has not been a victim country and (2) an effective' control and enforcement program would require a commitment of trained personnel and funds, both of which are scarce. The Panamanian Government has tended to give priority to its socio-economic development programs in using its financial and ad- ministrative resources. The Panamanian Government has, however, stated that it wishes to cooperate with the United States in eliminat- ing the flow of illicit drugs through Panama. During the past year, the Department of State and the U. S. Embassy have sought to increase Panamanian cooperation and commitment to control the international narcotics flow. They have facilitated Pana- manian acceptance of the assignment of BNDD and customs agents to work in Panama. When, because of a misunderstanding resulting from the publication in the U.S. press of allegations about Panamanian officials, the 13NDD agents were expelled from Panama, the Embassy within a short time was able to obtain Panamanian agreement to have them replaced. Some specific examples of Panamanian activity can be cited. In October and November 1971, the Panamanian National Guard located and destroyed approximately 50 tons of marihuana in the Las Perlas Islands. About 75 percent of this would ordinarily have been destined for the U.S. market and would have had a street value of $10 to $15 million. The Government of Panama introduced a crop substitution program. According to eyewitness accounts by one of our own BNDD agents very little marihuana is growing in the area this year. Rice is growing in its place. Panamanian Customs officials have cooperated at Tocumen Airport, at times assisting U.S. agents in dismantling planes suspected of carrying narcotics. Panamanian officials have pro- vided information concerning shipments of narcotics. Recently they broke up a narcotics smuggling ring, stopped a shipment of cocaine from entering the United States, and arrested the traffickers involved. During the past year, Panamanian authorities arrested a number of narcotics offenders in Panama, and have returned a fugitive trafficker who had jumped bond in the United States. They have participated in several narcotics control training courses, and have increased their understanding of the narcotics smuggling problem and Panama's role in it. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/21 CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Paraguay For many years the way of life in Paraguay has included smuggling of consumer goods. Smuggling of goods to Paraguay's neighboring countries has not been illegal. Supply and demand has been an im- portant element in clandestine and illegal trafficking in consumer good& to and through Paraguay, and in this latter regard, Paraguay seems to have had a role similar to that of Andorra between Spain and France. As there has been a demand or "need" for narcotics by some members of the population in the United States, apparently the opera- tional pattern of clandestine trade in Paraguay has been put to use helping supply that unfortunate need. Much of Paraguay's boundary areas with her neighbors are un- protected and unpoliced. Paraguay has developed into a transient place for heroin from Europe to the limited. States as well as for cocaine from South America, although drug abuse within Paraguay is apparently very small. It seems to have been difficult for some officials of Paraguay to understand the importance of the effort of the United States to ter- minate illegal drug traffic into our country, although this situation is improving. A key step in obtaining this improvement was the recent departure of Auguste Ricord from Paraguay and his safe arrival in. the United States to face, trial for alleged drug trafficking offenses. Based on my recent visit to Paraguay and personal discussions with President Stroessner, I am personally encouraged that we can expect an improved level of cooperation, understanding and mutual assist- ance in the drug suppression effort. This could include suppression of the manufacture of drugs in Paraguay and elimination of the smug- gling of drugs through that nation. Paraguay has limited resources for combating drug traffic, although a new awareness of the need seems to be unfolding. The U.S. Govern- ment expects to be able to assist the Government of Paraguay in appropriate, practical, and useful ways related to Paraguay's ability to absorb and use such assistance efficiently. We also expect that im- proved legislation in the drug preparation and trafficking fields will be enacted in Paraguay. France Most of the heroin entering the United States in recent years has been processed from Turkish opium and morphine base in southern France, primarily around Marseilles. The southern coastal town of Marseilles, which has long been a center of French underworld ac- tivity, is estimated to house within its environs as many as 12 heroin "laboratories." Nothing more than portable rudimentary workshops, these "laboratories" process morphine base into high-grade heroin. The French have expressed concern over their drug problem only in the last few years. Legal penalties were stiffened in, late 1970, when the national legislature doubled the maximum penalty for trafficking to 20 years. In 1971 a strong publicity campaign was launched to edu- Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 260 cate and arouse the French public to the drug abuse problem. In August 1971, President Pompidou sent a letter to the heads of other members of the European community proposing that the organization develop specific areas. of cooperation in attacking the drug problem. Furthermore, in the last several years, France has substantially increased the money and manpower allocated to the drug problem. Since 1969 the number of agents assigned to narcotics duty has greatly increased. The fight against drug abuse is directed from a central narcotics office in the Ministry of the Interior, but the customs service, which is part of the Ministry of Finance, has also been involved. In early 1972 the customs service was responsible for a large seizure of heroin cached on a shrimp trawler. In August 1971 Interior Minister Marcellin upgraded the leadership of the antidrug efforts by appoint- ing Francois le Mouel to head the overall effort and Marcel Morin to oversee operations in Marseilles. In the 10 years prior to the end of 1971, only three heroin laboratories had been uncovered. Thus far in 1972, five heroin laboratories have been shut down. French-American cooperation against the illegal drug traffic is based on a number of agreements, the most important of which was signed in February 1971 between then U.S. Attorney General Mitchell and French Interior Minister Marcellin. A number of agents from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs are stationed in Paris and Marseilles, and the French Judiciary Police has stationed agents in New York City.A bilateral Intergovernmental Committee on Drug Control meets quarterly to review the cooperative arrangements and to seek improvements in the program. West Germany West Germany is neither a known producer nor processor of opiates, but is considered an important transit country and storage and staging area for hard d rugs. The narcotics problem is compounded by the large number (over 2 million) of foreign workers in West Germany, many from the Middle East, who have acted as a conduit for illegal drug traffic. Because of the significant amounts of morphine bases and other opiates thought to be in the country, German officials are highly alert to the fact that a serious hard drug problem could develop relatively rapidly in Germany. Reflecting growing public and official concern, the German Gov- ernment (FRO) instituted in November 1970 a comprehensive "Ac- tion Program Against Drug Abuse." The program tightened legisla- tive control over legal and illegal movements of narcotics, initiated an educational campaign on the effects of drug abuse, increased the in- stitutional assistance available to addicts and users, and provided for enhanced international cooperation on the problem of combating the flow of illegal drugs across national boundaries. An extensive. series'of United States-Federal Republic of Germany consultation visits on narcotics matters has taken place at all levels of government. The BNDD staff in Germany has been expanded to five persons and offices opened in Munich, Bonn, and Frankfurt, and U.S. customs, officers are scheduled assignment to Munich and Hamburg to work with German customs on narcotics matters. Liaison has been in- stituted between the Federal Republic of Germany and U.S. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005101123'61 CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Embassies in Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The U.S. mili- tary forces, in cooperation with the Federal Republic of Germany, have begun a wide-ranging attack on drug problems affecting our troops in Germany. A Joint United States-Federal Republic of Ger- many Interministerial Task Force meets regularly on narcotics prob- lems affecting the U.S. forces in Germany and talks on military drug problems have also been instituted directly between the German Min- istry of Defense and U.S. military officials. In addition, a comprehensive bilateral program for further coopera- tion has been worked out and discussed at a high level with German officials. This program particularly focuses on cooperation with the Federal Republic of Germany narcotics enforcement officials, and in- cludes training and educational assistance, the sharing of narcotics technology and techniques, increased mutual informational exchanges on narcotics, coordination of narcotics-connected scientific research, and cooperation in social policy, international youth activities, and drug rehabilitation efforts. Eastern Europe Eastern Europe's importance in the international narcotics problem is primarily as a transit region for illegal opiates smuggled from Turkey to Western Europe. Bulgaria and Yugoslavia are the main transit routes. Thus far, only small quantities of illicit opiates are known to have been routed through Rumania, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, or East Germany. Production of opium, which occurs in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Hungary, is minor, although poppy seed is often an ingredient of East European pastries. There is no signifi- cant opiate addiction in the region, but the use of other dangerous drugs is growing. Following a trip by the U.S. Commissioner of Customs to the vari- ous Eastern European countries last December, we have been success- ful in developing on a bilateral basis cooperation in the field of nar- cotics with the various governments in the area. Customs and BNDD teams have visited Sophia, Belgrade, Bucharest, Budapest, and Prague. Appropriate officials from each of these countries have either visited or been invited to visit the United States to tour facilities in this coun- try concerned with enforcement and rehabilitation aspects of the nar- cotics problem. The thrust. of our efforts in the Eastern European area has been to elicit whatever cooperation we can from these governments to deal with drug abuse on a multilateral basis, to devise ways for cooperating with them in their efforts to control the transit of drugs across their territories, to promote a full exchange of information on all aspects of the drug problem between ourselves and these governments, and to endorse the efforts of the Ambassadors and other Embassy personnel to insure continuing and effective cooperation in this area. Turkey Although Turkey is not one of the world's largest producers of opium, it is the second largest legal exporter and the most important supplier of the raw material from which illicit heroin is produced for Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 262 the U.S. market. The principal source of illicit diversion appears to be the understatement of opium gum yields by some farmers in au- thorized poppy-growing provinces. The amount siphoned off in this manner is sold to the illicit trafficking network. Most other major pro- ducers of' opium have large numbers of domestic addicts to support. There is no significant consumption of opium in Turkey. Thus, the entire diversion is available to foreign buyers. In an effort to improve control over opium poppy cultivation in order to eliminate the illicit traffic, Turkey has reduced the number of provinces where poppy growing is legally permitted since 1967. As the number of provinces has fallen, production of opium gum has also fallen, but not nearly as rapidly. Estimates of opium gum produc- tion in 1967 ranged from 240 to 350 tons; 1971 estimates ranged from 180 to 210 tons. Events in 1971 introduced drastic changes in Turkish opium produc- tion. By law, the Turkish Government must announce poppy cultiva- tion decisions 1 year in advance of their implementation. The June 30, 1971, decree confirmed four provinces for cultivation during the 1971- 72 growing season but announced that a total ban would apply there- after. This decree was the strongest and most direct action legally pos- sible for the Turkish Government to take. Prior to the decree the Government had initiated a number of meas- ures in the spring of 1971, to improve the collection of opium gum. These included a 66-percent increase in the price government pur- chasers paid for the gum, an increase in the number of collection points in the seven poppy-growing provinces, cash payments when farmers turn in the guru and the initiation of a vigorous radio and press campaign publicizing these benefits and the penalties for noncom- pliance. It is estimated, that these measures substantially reduced the proportion of gum flowing into illicit channels. In August 1971, the Turkish Parliament enacted a licensing law which further strengthens the Government's authority over the grow- ing process. The law provides an improved basis for licensing, con- trolling, and collecting the final crop and includes stiffer penalties for those who fail to comply. In late 1971, licenses were issued to any farmer in the four authorized provinces who completed an applica- tion. Information on the license must include the location of the farm, the number of hectares to be planted, the amount of opium to be pro- duced, and a simple sketch of the opium field. The transfer of licenses is prohibited and licenses may not be issued to persons convicted of smuggling or other crimes. In support of the opium ban, the United States pledged $35 million which is in concept divided into two parts-(a) $20 million is in- tended as a financial resource for programs and projects which could, in a reasonable period of time, produce new sources of income for the poppy farmer and the ;region in which he lives ; and (b) $15 million spread over 3 to 4 years to the Government of Turkey will help replace losses in foreign exchange the Government would incur as a conse- quence of no longer being able to market its legitimate opium and re- lated poppy product exports. With American technical advice and assistance, Turkey has de- signed a special regional authority for central areas affected by the Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7, Approved For Release 2005/0J1Q7 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 poppy ban which will put developmental funds to work on selected activities, most of which are outlined in a joint report prepared in October and November 1971 by a United States-Turkish team. The U.S. team was led by former Secretary of Agriculture, Clifford Har- din. During the spring of 1972, Turkey established a regulatory and legislative base for this new regional development organization and made appointments to its key positions, hoping to utilize this opera- tion as a model for agricultural development perhaps applicable to other areas of Turkey as well. The opium poppy ban is subject to argument and challenge from a number of sources in Turkey. subject maintain that Turkey should not accept the economic loss without the commitment of massive compensa- tory assistance. Clearly, farmers are concerned over the uncertainty involved in changing a centuries old practice and wonder what will replace the opium gum and other byproducts to provide them cash and the products they consumed for their own use. The permanency of the ban will depend in large measure on the development of new sources of income to make up these losses. There will still be a need for vigorous law enforcement against smugglers if the flow of illegal opium is to be slowed after 1972 when production is banned. This is true because of the likelihood that illegal stocks of opium and morphine base may be stored in Turkey. In the mid or late 1960's, Turkish traffickers began to convert opium to morphine base before smuggling it out of the country. A large network exists in Turkey to collect and, in some cases, process and smuggle the opium out of the country. These activities can be expected to continue until opium is no longer available in Turkey. Afghanistan Opium production in Afghanistan-all illicit-is estimated at about 100 tons in 1971. Output could be higher than this; there is a lack of solid information on production in Afghanistan. Kabul is a signatory to the 1961 Single Convention, and production and trafficking are proscribed by domestic statute. However, the Royal Government of Afghanistan (RGA) is simply unable to provide adequate enforce- ment. There is no licit production of opium derivatives in Afghanis- tan nor any indication of illicit processing into morphine or heroin. The RGA in recent months has indicated a willingness to cooperate with other nations on the opium problem. Two ministerial-level com- mittees were set up in January 1972 to formulate narcotics control programs. The first committee is charged with supervising social and economic aspects of narcotics control (including cultivation and crop substitution) while the second committee is responsible for combating illicit traffic and strengthening the police and gendarmerie by upgrad- ing equipment and tightening customs controls. These committees also will provide liaison with foreign governments and advisers on specific control programs. The Government of Afghanistan is now preparing for visits by a joint UNFDAC/FAO team for a 3-week study tour beginning Sep- tember 18, and the special mission of the members of the Commission on Narcotics Drugs ad hoc Committee on Illicit Traffic in the Middle East in early October. Staff members from the Division of Narcotic Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 264 Drugs will participate in both vists. The Government of Afghanistan has decided to detail several qualified officials to the study tour, and is delaying completion of the reports of its two Cabinet Committees on Narcotics until the results of the visits are known. The Interna- tional Narcotics Control Board is also planning a visit to Kabul; the Government of Afghanistan has reportedly agreed to a January sob edule for this visit. Afghanistan faces economic and political constraints in instituting an effective narcotics control or eradication program. In some areas, opium provides practically the only cash income to the farmer. There is no substitute crop-except for hashish-that can be grown under existing agricultural conditions and provide anywhere near an equal income. If cash subsidies are required to induce farmers to cease illicit poppy cultivation., the RGA would expect funding for such a program to come from outside sources, given Afghanistan's slim resources. For Afghanistan narcotics control has not had a high priority because addiction is not a domestic problem. Furthermore, the droughts of 1970 and 1971 strained Afghanistan's financial and manpower resources. The following steps have been taken by the American Embassy in Kabul to secure Afghan cooperation in narcotics control : Assignment of BNDD agent to the Embassy; Organization of regular meeting of Ambassadors of concerned countries to coordinate approaches to RGA; Suggestion of U.S. willingness to provide technical assistance for enforcement and crop substitution projects if desired by RGA; Continuing diplomatic contact with RGA officials at al levels. The major difficulties in Afghanistan have been the preoccupation of the Government with an unprecedented drought and the human, economic, and political consequences of the drought. Hopefully now that the drought seems over, senior Afghan officials will be able to devote their attention to this problem. A major continuing problem will be the limited capability of enforcement agencies in Afghanistan. Clearly we need more information about the location, amount and profitability of opium poppy production in Afghanistan and how it moves out of the country. We shall continue our efforts to convince the Government of Afghanistan of the seriousness of the problem and the importance of well=coordinated international action to overcome it. Pakistani Annual opium production in Pakistan is probably at least 32 tons, but may be 170 tons or more. Estimates of total output are extremely tenuous because of the dearth of information on illicit output. Licit opium production in 1971, as reported by Islamabad to the United Nations, was only about 12 tons. Opium poppy cultivation takes place in the Northwest Frontier Province, with much illicit cultivation in tribal'. areas outside'the Government's control. Pakistan does not export licit opium ; a small amount is used in the domestic pharmaceutical industry, but most is consumed by domestic opium eaters. Most illicit output, on the other hand, probably enters the illicit international market and is sold in Iran. The major current problem in Pakistan is that the country was divided by the warfare in December 1971 and must reconstruct itself Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/V : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 in the aftermath. The major continuing problem will be the lack of administrative and police control over tribal territories along the west- ern border, and perhaps even more perplexing, the former princely states of Swat, Dir, Chitral and Amb which are being transferred from tribal to settled administration, a process which will take years to complete. Before an effective control effort can move very fast, more informa- tion about the location, amount, and profitability of opium poppy production in Pakistan will be needed, especially concerning the tribal areas and the former princely states. The Embassy has requested a great deal of additional information from the Government of Pakistan, and it is believed that much of it is being prepared now. The U. S. Government has taken the following steps to encourage the Government of Pakistan to improve its control of narcotics production and trade : President Nixon sent a letter to President Bhutto urging full GOP cooperation in the international control effort. President Bhutto has replied promising full cooperation. I have visited Pakistan for a full round of talks with GOP leaders. Both before and since the above, the Embassy in Islamabad undertook diplomatic approaches in several ministries and at various levels within the GOP. We have offered assistance to the GOP in studying the problem and in providing both technical assistance and equipment. In the most preliminary stages are GOP plans to create a Nar- cotics Intelligence Bureau under the authority of the Narcotics Board, and to possibly shift responsibility for narcotics control from the provinces to the center. Southeast Asia The drug trafficking problem in Southeast Asia has been very much in the news during recent months. We have been gratified to see that the press has begun to take cognizance of the efforts our Government, in cooperation with the governments of the area, has taken during the past year to head off the supply of Southeast Asian heroin to the United States. Let me assure you that favorable reports do not stimulate a sense of complacency on our part. We are taking the threat of Southeast Asia's potential as a major source of heroin for the U.S. market very seriously. For this very reason we have bilateral narcotics control action plans operating in 10 Asian nations. At the same time, we have serious prob- lems, particularly, in Burma, where the majority of illicit opium pro- duced in the so-called Golden Triangle is grown. I shall review some of the problem areas : Burma While considerable progress has been made in antinarcotics suppres- sion in most of Southeast Asia in recent months, the intractable situa- tion in northeastern Burma remains. Although Burma is the largest producer of opium in the Golden Triangle, most of the illicit opium is grown and transported through remote, mountainous areas where the Burmese Government has little or no control. Numerous insurgent 82-845-72-11t. 6- -:; Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 266 groups-both Communist and tribal-have created serious internal security problems for the thinly spread Burmese military forces. Insur- gency and illicit narcotics are closely related because opium provides the means for various groups to purchase arms and supplies. In order to maintain what little control it presently has in the area, the Burmese Government has had to rely upon local factions, primarily an ethnic self-defense militia known as the Khakweyei (KKY). Unable to provide adequate equipment, arms and supplies to KKY units allied with it, the Burmese Government has been forced to give the KKY local autonomy so as to support themselves. This the KKY forces do through traditional means, such as illegal taxation, extortion and- most importantly-trafficking in opium. Government attempts to sup- press narcotics production and trafficking must be weighed against the risk of alienating the KKY, who could readily join the insurgents in opposing the government. This would deny even larger areas to the Burmese authorities without hindering KKY opium trading activities. Unfortunately, the Burmese are unwilling to modify their rigid policy of nonalinement and neutrality and decline to accept inter- national assistance in combating their narcotics problem. Still, de- spite their wariness of foreign designs and their preference to resolve the problem themselves, Burmese officials have recently been more willing to exchange views on the international drug situation with the United States and international agencies. Moreover, recent discussions between Burmese and U.N. officials offer some hope of United Nations antinarcotics activity in Burma. As long as Burma's internal security is threatened, however, the Burmese Government will undoubtedly continue to assign highest priority to its counterinsurgency efforts. Laos recent narcotics control actions in Laos have been concentrated on staffing the troupe Special d'Investigation, or GSI, the Lao equiv- alent of the BNDD, and expanding its operations to key areas of the trafficking pipeline. GSI was created by a Cabinet decree on Janu- ary 12, 1972. By mid-August small, but skilled, GST teams were sta- tioned in Ban Houei Sai, Luang Prabang and Pakse as well as in Vientiane. On March 11 a GSI team seized 10.7 kilos of opium from a civilian passenger on a Royal Lao Air Force plane. On March 17 and 25, an- other GSI team located the sites of two abandoned heroin refineries near Ban Houei Sai and seized a large amount of refinery chemicals and equipment hidden in the jungle. Perhaps the most siunificant action by GSI agents occurred on June 6 when the home of a National Assembly deputy was raided and 9.5 kilos of heroin and 26 kilos of opium were seized. The deputy was arrested. This action already dem- onstrated that the RILG is prepared to move against traffickers even though they may occupy positions of influence. We believe that the success of our narcotics control plan in Laos is due in large part to the power and broad jurisdiction given to GSI by Prime Minister Souvanna Phouma. Its chief, B. Gen. Khamhou Boussarath, reports directly to the Prime Minister. GSI agents are authorized to investigate and arrest both civilians and military per- sonnel. If necessary, B. Gen. Khamhou can supplement his teams with personnel from the national police, customs or Armed Forces. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 267 Advisers from our Mission in Vientiane continue to work closely with their counterparts in GSI, the national police, customs, and the military police, as they have since early last year. Two private Amer- ican charter airlines under contract to the Mission, Air America and Continental Air Services, are also cooperating with Lao authorities to prevent trafficking on their aircraft. During the first 6 months of this year, stringent searches of passengers and cargo resulted in 35 seizures totaling 22 kilos of opium. This is not a large amount, but we believe that, like the overall program, the companies' interdiction effort has had a deterrent effect on trafficking which is not entirely reflected by the total amount of narcotics seized. During this same period of time, significant progress was made in another facet of the central program which so far has not received much attention here, addict rehabilitation. We know from our own experience that an important factor in narcotics control is demand. The RLG faces the same problem, which is compounded by the fact that opium consumption and cultivation has been tolerated by Lao society for generations. There have been recent news reports of criti- cism by National Assembly deputies that the narcotics control plan concentrates on law enforcement without regard to rehabilitation of Lao addicts whose supply of opium has been suddenly stopped, or for small farmers whose only cash crop traditionally has been opium. A group of opposition deputies has proposed repeal of the Lao Narcotics Control Law on these grounds. While it is true the control plan emphasizes law enforcement, we have also been working with the Ministries of Public Health and Agriculture on other programs. We are assisting with a pilot rehabili- tation project in the Vientiane area where heroin addiction is increas- ing. We shall also attempt to apply crop substitution programs, like those developed among opium growers in northern Thailand, to gov- ernment-controlled areas when the security situation permits. We anticipate that these measures will assist Prime Minister Souvanna Phouma now in answering critics of the program and form a long-term basis for the program's more rapidly expanding law enforcement elements. Thailand In recent months, intensified Thai antinarcotics efforts, with U.S. support and assistance, have contributed significantly to discouraging narcotics trafficking in Thailand. Still, much needs to be done. We feel that the foundations that have been laid during the past year are serving to give the Thai an increasingly effective narcotics enforcement program. The Special Narcotics Organization (SNO), a mobile task force in north Thailand, and the police in Bangkok have in recent months conducted numerous raids on suspected narcotics caches. There have been significant seizures of opium, morphine, and heroin and the arrest of several important traffickers. Close working relations and cooperation have been established between Thai and U.S. officials thereby facilitating stronger efforts against the drug traffic destined for the United States. A seizure on September 10 of 12 kilos of No. 4 heroin and arrests of two Thai traffickers by Thai police in Bangkok is a good example. Cooperation in that case involved many Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 268 agencies of both the Thai and United States Government and augers well for the future of our narcotics efforts in Thailand. The, success of our bilateral programs has caused disruption of established smuggling routes and made traffickers more cautious. This increased pressure on the drug merchants has forced many of them to postpone purchases and shipments of narcotics, resulting in a signifi- cant reduction in the price of opium and derivative products in the Golden Triangle. Moreover, the, recent agreement between the Chinese Irregular Forces (CIF), under which the latter agreed to terminate their involvement: in narcotics, appears to have removed a key link in the drug pipeline and to have forced the traffickers to seek alternate routes and personnel. The enforcement successes scored by SNO and other Thai police units! underline the necessity of providing substitute crops for hill tribe opium producers. With the drop in opium prices and a sluggish market, hill tribesmen are being deprived of their major cash income. While SNO enforcement measures are not directed at the grower as much as the traicker,curtailrnent of the traffic affects the hill tribes directly. It is therefore essential that programs designed to show them how to grow substitute cash crops be accelerated. Economic necessity will hopefully encourage hill tribe receptivity to alternate crops, as well as RTG and addict rehabilitation efforts. A joint Thai Govern- ment-ITnited Nations project has been designed to begin what even- tually must be an economic and social revolution in the upland areas of Thailand. By continuing to apply pressure against the trafficker while offering the i rowers substitute income, the narcotics problem thus is being attacked on both fronts. 7long Kong Several actions taken by the Hong Kong Government in recent months reflect its continuing and increasing concern over the interna- tionaldrug problem. One significant step taken in June was the crea- tion of a new position of Commissioner of Narcotics. The Commis- sionerserves ender the Secretary for Home Affairs and is responsible for coordinating police, customs, prison and medical programs con- cerned with narcotic's. Thus, for the first time, Hong Kong has a, senior officials who devotes full time to coordinating efforts in the narcotics field. The new Commissioner, Norman Rolph, formerly Deputy Commis- sioner of Police, has recently made it clear that the Hong Kong Gov- ernment intends to cooperate fully in the suppression of any interna- tional narcotics trafficking that involves Hong Kong. On August 31, Commissioner Rolph said in a statement to the press: There has undoubtedly been a small traffic of narcotics from Hong Kong to America over the years, and if the Turkish sources dry up, the illegal traffic through Hong Kong could expand. It is our business to see, as far as we possibly can, that this does not develop. It concerns the Americans and it concerns our- solves. We are going to have to watch this possibility and we are going to do something about it. On the enforcement side, Hong- Kong authorities have scored some notable, success in 1472). For instance, one drug seizure in June, involved 1,775 pounds of raw. opium and 180 pounds of morphine base found on It cargo junk. In April of this year, after months of investigation; Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 269 Hong Kong Police raided and closed down what was believed to be one of the biggest heroin factories ever found in IIong Kong. Cambodia and Vietnam Cambodia and Vietnam, althouffh faced with serious threats to their security, are nevertheless engaged in the war on drugs. During 197`3 the Khmer Republic in early 1972) established a Directorate of Nar- cotics composed of officers drawn from Customs, Public Health, Na- tional Police, Military Police, and Ministry of Defense. In Vietnam on August 12, President Thicu promulgated a decree law on narcotics and dangerous drugs. In what was a most significant step, the law calls for the execution of the death penalty for those persons convicted of trafficking in hard drugs in an organized narcotics ring. Additional information on geographic regions and individual Coun- tries is contained in the "World Opium Survey 1972," released by the cabinet committee on August 16. The survey is a frank and candid analysis of the problem as it now stands. Because it is candid, it should not be assumed that we are pessimistic. One of the requirements of managing an ongoing program is an ability to manage successes and failures. Ours is not a program that will bring immediate, relief from the horrendous problem nor is it doomed to failure. Our program is one in which a substantial beginning has been achieved, one in which an appreciable impact has been made. If the momentum is sustained, we. can look forward to continued sizeable results. Some recent suc- cesses can be cited : In the New York City area, the Bureau of Nar- cotics and Dangerous Drugs reports that at the wholesale level the Purity of heroin has been reduced in the last 6 months to a year from 51 percent to 32 percent. At the retail level-that is, on the street-- quality is as low as 2 and 3 percent. That is considerably less than it was a year afro. These figures are based on analyses of the significant amounts of heroin that have been seized by law enforcement agents and by purchases by undercover agents. As other examples, in Boston, the cost of one gram of heroin jumped in recent months from $418 to $7f3.i. In Baltimore the pressure on supply has forced prices up from $10 to $15 a bag, and that bag is of lessened quality, the amount. of pure heroin decreasing from 6 percent to 4 percent, and in some cases as low as 1 percent. I should stress that the approach of a successful program cannot relate to supply alone. Nor is an attack on the demand side alone, the answer. Rather a combined program is called for. The objective is to interdict supply to the degree. that availabilities are sharply reduced. The shortage of drugs will then tend to drive addicts into treatment; as well as prevent therm from addicting others who might be tempted to experiment with the drug. There are strong indications that progress is being made. According to the Special Action Office, for Drug Abuse Prevention, there are 60,000 to 70,000 persons being treated in some 450 federally regulated methadone programs throughout the country with an estimated .30,000 on waiting lists. Compared with a year ego, this constitutes a sharp rise in both treatment centers and patients. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-R0DP74B00415R000300230003-7 27 We have confronted the problem of drug abuse unhesitatingly and without illusions. A full year of work has taken place within the framework of the Cabinet Committee, and we plan to accelerate our efforts a good deal more. The stepping off point will begin next Mon- day, September 18, the first day of a 3-day Washington Conference on International Narcotics Matters, a conference to which we have sum- moned senior narcotics control coordinators from more than 50 U.S. missions around the world. The President will address the Conference on the first morning, and a series of meetings will be held for 3 days to push our program into higher gear. We shall evaluate the progress to date and consider what must be done to improve our program. Our goal is obviously urgent, but we must be certain that our plans of attack are realistic and responsible. In the forthcoming conference, we shall reemphasize the importance of narcotics control as a foreign policy issue. More effective law enforcement and an increased exchange of information will continue as the top priority items in the U.S. inter- national control program. At the same time we shall continue to rec- ognize that there must be a balance between programs to suppress traffic and other approaches, such as the development of replacement crops for opium. In other words, our plans must be comprehensive. more effective must be utilized. Every viable forum forvfocusing lat- tention on the problem must be sought. National commitments are, of course, essential. Toward this end bilateral cooperation will some- times be the most expeditious means of proceeding. But regional co- operation will also be sought, and in some cases the all-encompassing structure of the United Nations will be the most effective. The past year has, in fact, been marked by considerable activity in thefield of multilateral action against narcotics traffic. Two major pieces of international narcotics legislation, the Protocol Amend- ing the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Conven- tion on Psychotropic Substances, are presently before the U.S. Senate and the appropriate bodies of other nations for ratification. These conventions would rationalize and strengthen international regula- tion of narcotics traffiic: and provide for the first international control of such substances as hallucinogens and amphetamines. The United States is also giving its full support to the work of the U.N. Fund for Drug Abuse Control, having provided $2 million of the $3.2 million pledged as of June 30, 1972. We have congressional authorization for another $2 million and will seek additional appro- priations in the future depending upon the fund's performance. We find particularly important the fund's first major project in Thailand where more than $2 million has been committed to an action program of drug abuse control involving crop substitution in the remote hill areas of that country and rehabilitation and treatment of addicts. Aside from Southeast Asia, the Middle East is another critical area for narcotics production and traffic. The forthcoming visit of a U.N. ad hoc committee to Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan could be very valuable in identifying narcotics problems and encouraging regional cooperation in solving them. The United States believes that the Ad Hoc Committee on the Near East should be converted into Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 a permanent body and we expect to encourage ECOSOC to do this at its next session. I conclude by stating that while the problem of drug abuse is critical for the United States, heroin addiction and other forms of abuse are spreading elsewhere in this hemisphere, in Europe, and in other parts of the world. It is fully appreciated by most of the na- tions with which we are cooperating that a truly collective effort against both the supply of and demand for illicit drugs and narcotics will be required to bring the problem of drug abuse under control. President Nixon stated the case on March 21, 1972, as follows : The fight against drug abuse is complex and difficult, but there are signs that we are making progress. More victims are under treatment than ever be- fore. More and better ways of treatment are becoming increasingly available. More illegal drugs are being seized-both within this country and without. More nations around the world are joining with us in a vigorous effort to stop drug trafficking. More Americans are becoming involved in the fight in their communities, their churches, their schools, and their homes. Now we must continue to build on this progress until success is assured. The President's message is clear. A full-scale, across-the-board bat- tle against drug abuse is required if we are to succeed in the elimina- tion of a tragic epidemic. Toward this end, we in the Department of State shall continue to strive. STATEMENT OF JOHN E. INGERSOLL, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today in your inquiry into the nature and organization of the Federal drug law enforcement effort. I intend to confine my remarks for the most part to the nature and activities of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, which I have directed since the fall of 1968, shortly after its creation. It is the principal Federal law enforcement agency operating in this area whether measured in terms of agent manpower, legislative mandate, or breadth of knowledge and expertise. As you will see, our bureau also has in its service a diverse pool of professional talents required to handle many additional matters which support the pri- mary mission of apprehending drug traffickers. But before attempting to recount the Bureau.'s many responsibilities and the manner in which it seeks to fulfill them, I think it useful to briefly describe the nature of the drug traffic and indicate those areas in which we are not operationally involved. This will also help to explain the role of other agencies which have an important part to play in the total effort. The sources of illicit drugs are roughly divided into two categories which include those of clandestine origin, such as heroin, cocaine, marihuana, and LSD, and those which have been diverted from legiti- mate origin, such as barbiturates, amphetamines, certain narcotics, and tranquilizers. With some important exceptions, most of the drugs of clandestine origin are surreptitiously brought into the United States from abroad whereas a large portion of the diverted drugs are of domestic manufacture. In all cases, the drugs are ultimately made Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : G)-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 available to the user through criminal enterprises organized for profit. This activity varies tremendously in its scope, degree of organization, and importance with the total traffic. At one end of the spectrum, we have on the international level, well- organized and financed criminal groups which manufacture, move, and market heroin across continents and oceans for millions of dollars profit. At the other end, by contrast, are the neighborhood street corner peddlers, who may be marketing heroin which has passed through numerous hands and become heavily diluted since entering the country. Alternatively, they may be selling an array of various pills which they themselves have diverted through thefts from doctors' offices or drugstores. Between these extremes stand a vast array of circumstances which would require a text to describe. These include students returning from Mexican border towns with small amounts of marihuana, aircraft., or four-wheel-drive vehicles smuggling tons of marihuana or kilograms of heroin across the Rio Grande, profes- sional hijackers diverting shipments of tens of thousands of amphet- amino tablets, servicemen mailing pounds or ounces of heroin into the continental United States, Chinese shipjnmpers body-packing heroin, and even occasionally foreign diplomats taking advantage of their generally unrestricted movement across international boundaries. I think it clear from this sketch that the problem is sufficiently im- mense that nog one agency of government could be expected to encorrr- pass it all. For that' reason, most of the drug law enforcement effort in the. United States is and must continue to be conducted at the level of State and local police. In addition to other aid which the Federal Government contributes to the local effort, the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement has recently been organized to mount an integrated attack on the. street-level heroin peddlers. Also, since drugs are so fre.- quently smuggled through our ports and borders, the Customs authori- ties are and must continue to be vigilant in their search for contraband drugs. Because. of the diverse illicit business interests of criminal ele- ments in general, other Federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and Alcohol, Tobacco Tax and Firearms Bureau will from time to time be in a position to make valuable contributions to the drug suppression effort. Finally, the Central Intelligence. Agency provides invaluable assistance in its collection and analysis of drug related intelligence. The primary mission of the Bureau- of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs is to disrupt drat part of the traffic which is organized at the international or interstate level. This is the mission which the Federal Government is uniquely suited to fulfill by virtue of its great resources and broader jurisdiction. Within these, perimeters, the Bureau enforcement emphasis is on stopping the flow of drugs at their foreign sources and in disrupting illicit commerce, in drugs at its highest and most organized levels where the apprehension of violators can have the most impact. The. higher one proceeds in thw drug traffic, the greater the quantity of drugs handled by a decreasing number of people. This is the bottleneck of the pyra- mid of illegal distribution ultimately reaching down to the street corner level. It is, therefore, the strategic point to strike ; and in the Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/012/2 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 case of heroin and cocaine in particular, it is a bottleneck which is especially vulnerable because of its lengthy lines of communication which extend across oceans and continents. The first line of attack abroad is the diplomatic effort in which our Bureau officials participate in conjunction with State Department per- sonnel. This activity is aimed at the achievement of social, legal, and governmental changes which facilitate in the suppression of drug traf- fic or manufacture. Examples are the passage of recent legislation in Laos banning the cultivation of opium; the establishment of special enforcement structures in. Thailand and Laos and operate in conjunc- tion with our foreign offices; the banning of opium cultivation in 'T'urkey which takes effect this year; and the current increased police activity which has been accomplished in such nations as France and Mexico. The second part of our effort to strike, at foreign sources is one in which we are more deeply involved as the principal. It consists of the day-to-day cooperation at the operational level between the police forces of foreign nations and our own officers. This is far more than a mere exchange of intelligence but consists of joint investigative activities. Your committee was provided with examples of this in recent testi- mony of our agents concerning the Jaguar, the Cirillo, and the b'uuarez cases. The arrests resulting from these investigations immobilized heroin distribution rings at the very highest level on both sides of the Atlantic simultaneously. The French police in these cases con- certed their action with us precisely on a day-to-day and hour-to-hour basis with a constant flow of information concerning developments. As concerns these and similar cases, the investigative forces of the two nations actually operated as one. The same caliber of cooperation has also been developed with Canada, Mexico, and other European police forces, particularly in Ce.rmany, Italy, and Turkey. In other parts of the, world where narcotic law enforcement is still i it its infancy, such as Laos and Thailand, our agents assume an even closer operating posture with the domestic police forces. In the recent organization of new narcotic units in both Thailand and Laos, BNDD agents actually help direct operations, provide the support, expertise, arid instruct in the use of the specialized technical equipment such as radios, aircraft, and other sophisticated devices. The scope of our foreign commitment has increased from 13 offices in fiscal year 1969 to the present 46 offices with several others still planned. Because of the recent expansion of our foreign effort, there are many nations in which we have only begun to develop programs and the level and quality of cooperation characteristic of such nations as France, Turkey, and Mexico where we have long worked, cannot yet be expected. This is particularly true in much of Central and South America and some parts of Asia. We feel that this will come within a short time when these nations realize the priority which the United States places on suppression of the drug traffic. In those cases in which this does not prove to be so, the Congress can expect to receive reports from ourselves and the State Department accordingly. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 274 For the purpose of effecting the Bureau's primary mission, we cur- rently have approximately 1,600 special agents stationed in the United States and abroad. Tables listing our foreign and domestic offices and their manpower complements are attached to my statement. Although the number is small and still growing, this represents an increase from a base of less than 600 agents with which we begun when I first became Director of BNDD in the fall of 1968. Most of this force is stationed within the continental United States and as important as the work of our foreign offices is in eliminatin sources, this work must be complemented by eliminating the criminal organizations which; operate at home. I have already indicated to you the nature of the Bureau's strategic approach to the drug traffic in both foreign and domestic areas. It would next be useful to consider the tactics by which we attempt to implement this strategy, particularly inasmuch as our Bureau possesses unique capabilities in this regard. The most outstanding of these is the ability of our agent personnel to work in undercover situations daily for prot.rActed periods of time. This is a particularly difficult role which requires a great mixture of courage, cunning, and theatrics. It is not so simple, as is sometimes represented, for an agent to identify himself with criminals and work himself into the interior of an organization. Our agents are professional persons who possess the normal family and community ties which one would expect in the case of any good citizen. They cannot literally live with the people they investigate. They cannot commit crimes with them, gamble with them, entertain prostitutes or engage in acts of violence. All of this they must be pre- pared to simulate in an acceptable fashion. The dancer of discovery is ever present and it is certainly a job which cannot be accomplished on the basis of a 9 to:5 workday; but they are nevertheless successful. All of the three cases of which you heard previously from our agents were developed in part through undercover work. Suarez, the major Mexican violator, was discovered when an undercover agent of ours was negotiating for the purchase of 15 kilograms of heroin at a, price of $200,000. This $200,000 had to be shown to the violators to convince them of the undercover agent's serious intent. Naturally, unknown to them, for both the agent's safety and the safety of the $200,00'00, every meeting and every move was covered by a team of agents conducting surveillance at a distance. This is standard proce- dure. Moreover, in that case, as is often true, $21,000 of Government funds had already been expended on the. purchase of one kilogram of heroin from one of the suspects. This was money which had passed into the possession of the trafficker and was no doubt briefly enjoyed by him until hi's arrest 3 weeks later. By making repeated purchases in this fashion, our agents are fre- quently able to work their way through various levels of traffickers to the tops In a Chicago investigation, spanning a. 6-month period, $81,200 were expended in the purchase of six different exhibits of heroin total- ing 2,500 grams. But the case resulted in the arrest of 10 organized crime figures in the Chicago area; seizure of an additional 3,000 grams Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 275 of heroin, five guns, two automobiles, and $83,000 in cash, only $9,850 of which were. of the original $81,000 of Government funds expended. The Bureau also uses funds for the Vurchase of information, usually in the form of a reward to a, cooperating individual. In March of this year, an informant provided us with information concerning sus- pects un Denver, Colo,, including Eugene Smaldone, wha, together with his father have been the most important figures in organized crime in Denver far the last decade. In the course of several months, with guid- ance from BNDD agents, the individual became increasingly familiar with the Smaldono operation and was actually sent to Lima, Peru, to pick up a shipment of cocaine. This resulted in arrests in both Peru and Colorado and a reward of $9,800 was paid to the informant for his effort. Our ability to offer substantial rewards is of undisputed importance, and you may recall that this ability was responsible for the first break in the Jaguar case of which you have heard. In that case an individual unexpectantly appeared in our Paris regional office and advised that lie had been recruited in connection with a shipment of 94 kilograms of heroin to be hidden in a 1971 Jaguar. His motivation in contacting us was the prospect of a reward. 'The Congress has consistently recognized the value of the techniques by appropriating necessary funds. Also, the Congress has recently provided us new legal weapons which we have used to great advantage. Among these are court- authorized wire intercepts, which we have found often provide the only means for the in-depth penetration of drug trafficking organizations. For example, a task force which we employed against a drug traffick- ing ring in Washington, D.C., in the summer of 1969, was at first able to identify only four individuals, one of whom was the principal local violator known as "Slippery" Jackson. Because of a court-authorized wire intercept on Jackson's telephone, we subsequently identified and incriminated his two associates, 46 additional subordinates, and the three men who constituted his primary source of heroin supply in New York. The use of the wiretap also enabled us, working with the metropolitan police, to positively identify and incriminate a police officer who was involved with the gang. In a subsequent wiretap case in Kansas City, in addition to develop- ing the evidence needed for drug prosecutions, we were able to prevent a planned murder and supply the FBI with information to assist in the apprehension of bank robbers. Wiretap evidence can also be im- portant inclearing the innocent as well as incriminating the guilty. In one of our first utilizations of this new weapon in New York, we dis- covered that a primary suspect whom we intended to arrest and prose- cute was, in fact, innocent; he was thus saved a great deal of embar- rassment, expense, and mental suffering. I want to emphasize that the use of this technique is one which cannot be routinely employed because of its expense and burdensome manpower requirement; but it is an invaluable tool in selected situations. Another legal improvement was the extension of our jurisdiction, under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 given us by the Congress, to persons who commit drug trafficking offenses effecting the United States while abroad. In other words, if we are able to prove that an Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 276 American or forei gg n citizen has committed acts aiding the illegal flow of drugs into the United States, the individual can be indicted by our Federal courts and extradition proceedings begun. This was the basis on which BNDD agents in Asuncion made their request for extra- dition in the /2icorcl case. I do not wish to suggest that the possibilities for improvements in drug law or in drug law enforcement techniques have been exhausted. This is by no means the case. We still have a number of problems which must be studied and addressed. We have, and continue to be, particu- larlyalarrned at the continuing drug trafficking activity of individuals follondng their arrest. Nevertheless, we feel that the enforcement effort, which our ex- panded resources and authority have made possible, are beginning to have a detectable impact upon drug traffic in the United States. At- tached to m v statement is a summary record of our achievements for fiscal year 1972. Among other things, it shows that we made 4,579 arrests independently and 3,192 arrests in conjunction with other for- eign and domestic enforcement agencies. This was a substantial per- centage increase over 1971 in both categories. We removed from the traffic 5,107 pounds of heroin or heroin equivalents in opium and morphine base, 675 pounds of cocaine, and 207,094,395 dosage units of dangerous drugs. Our conviction rate was 96 percent in Federal cases and 98 percent in State cases. Most significant of all, which these fig- ures do not reflect, is the fact that we, are now experiencing a general heroin shortage in all. major east coast cities. This shortage of un- precedented extent and duration and we relate it to the removal of major heroin trafficking organizations on both sides of the Atlantic, as a result of investigations such its the Jaguar, Cirillo, and )Wagger cases. I want to emphasize here that seizure figures are often reported by ns and others because of their dramatic impact, but the true measure of success is the importance of the violators who are taken out of the. tra,ffie through enforcement activity. The size of seizures often, but not always, provides a gage of the importance of the defendants in- volved. If the drugs alone are intercepted. and taken out of the traf- fie, some worthwhile objective is achieved. But if the violators are detected and taken out of the traffic, then a whole string of illicit com- merce' ceases to exist; for the particular shipment which may have been seized is but one of many which preceded it and which would have followed. The impact of apprehending a, principal trafficker can be seen from the recent arrest in Saigon of Wan Pen-Fen as a result of a joint I3NDI)/Vietnamese investigation. The removal of this single individual who was one of the Asian kingpins of the drug traffic has re- portedly increased the street price of a vial of heroin from $1 to $9. In addition to the efforts which I have outlined, our Bureau has a range of other major responsibilities and capabilities to which I can hardly do justice in a single statement. We have the responsibility for regulating the domestic drug distribution chain, which includes regis- tration of nearly 500,000 individual entities. including basic manu- facturers, wholesalers, retailers, pharmacists, and doctors. This regulatory effort involves a special office within the Bureau which has its own agent and investigative staff. Much of the, work is Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/0'7 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 of a purely regulatory nature in which we employ our growing c / AMSTERDAM r~y~,.I FRANKFURT ND ND~R PARIS GENOA MARSEILLE\9 IeBOAARCELONA ASUNCION PARAG. MONTEVIDEO Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 288 Q v ~'~111 U 1`1 0,C )4 N08Of'EN NoRp0L' NEW QRLEAAfS'~' DAtLAc'TAMPAU t3u~~0S A :~tS SIGNIFICANT HEROIN SEIZURES IN UNITED STATES AND CANADA JULY 1970 TO PRESENT' A. Bulk shipments of heroin moved from South America to U.S. via Contra- B. Aircraft. B. Bulk shipments direct from France to the New York areain automobiles. C. Bulk, shipments from France and Spain to San Juan, Mexico and Canada in automobiles later driven across the borders. 1 All of United States or d anadian customs unless otherwise stated. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/1627 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 D. Bulk shipments from South America and Europe in suitcases carried by Diplomats. E. Bulk shipments on cruise ships to the Caribbean and on to South Florida and other U.S. ports. F. Small shipments from Southeast Asia via APO, MAC, and body carries. Miami, Fla_____________ July 29, 1970 Do________________ Oct. 20,1970 Toronto, Canada__------ Nov. 28, 1970 Montreal, Canada ------------ do__-____ Miami, Fla (BNDD)------ Dec. 12, 1970 Do-------------------do------- San Juan, P.R---------- Jan. 18, 1971 Fort Monmouth, N.J----- Apr. 5,1971 New Jersey____?________ __do_______ Honolulu, Hawaii ----- ___ May 16,1971 Miami, Fla_____________ May 22,1971 San Juan, P.R__-------- May 29,1971 Montreal, Canada -------- June 22,1971 J.F.K. Airport, N.Y------ July 8,1971 Toronto, Canada________ July 15,1971 Laredo, Tex ------------- Aug. 26, 1971 New York (BNDD)------ Sept. 14,1971 Do________________ Sept. 22, 1971 Do ---------------- Sept. 29, 1971 Do________________ Oct. 6,1971 Sacramento ------------ Nov. 11,1971 Travis AFB_____________ Dec. 30, 1971 Miami, Fla. (BNDD)_____ Jan. 3, 1972 Do ---------------- Jan. 10, 1972 Honolulu, Hawaii________ Jan. 26, 1972 New York (BNDD)______ Jan. 27, 1972 Miami, Fla ___ Apr. 5, 1972 New York, N.Y---------- Apr. 26, 1972 Calexico, Calif---------- _ May 18, 1972 Seattle, Wash ----------- May 23, 1972 Douglas, Ariz ----------- May 26, 1972 San Ysidro, Calif-------- Aug. 5, 1972 Do --------------- Aug. 7,1972 J.F.K. airport ----------- July 4, 1972 San Diego, Calif Aug. 23, 1972 Quantity Smuggling method Country of (pounds) employed departure 4 Courier/suitcase--------------- Curacao. 94 Private air -------------------- Paraguay. 22 Suitcase______________________ Frankfurt. 18 -----do----------------------- Paris. 40 Unknown --------------------- Unknown. 210 Cargo air_____________________ Paraguay. 58 _ __do_______________________ Dominican Republic. 17 Official mail___________________ Bangkok,Thailand. 97 Automobile__________________ Le Havre, France. 4 Thermos jugs, suitcase--------- Hong Kong. 155 Cargo air_____________________ Buenos Aires. 246 Automobile__________________ Bilbao, Spain. 110 _____do_______________________ Le Havre, France. 156 Suitcase -diplomat ------------ Panama. 4 Suitcase- ............ Italy. 24 Automobile -fures-___ ------- Mexico City. 206 Automobile -------------------- France/via England. 186 ----- do----------------------- Genoa, Italy. 69 Suitcase- Braniff -------------- Chile/Argentina. 39 Cargo-oil-Paintings---------- Argentina. 3 Mail-APO___ ------------ Thailand. 17 Cargo-military-Airlift -------- Do. 238 Laundry bags-cruise ship------ France. 147 ----do-------------------- Do. 18 Courier body ---------------- Singapore. 86 Unknown possibly champagne France. boxes. 22 Suitcase_____________________ Hong Kong. 10 Cargo---- - ------------------ Japan. ti Mexico. 11 In picture frames -------------- Lebanon. 6i. Automobile ------------------- Mexico. 3 Vehicle ---------------------- Do. 9 - - - - - do-- ---------- Do. 6% Suitcase______________________ Thailand. 2 Body carry___________________ Mexico. COCAINE SEIZURES, AUGUST 1970 ro DATE A. Bulk shipments of cocaine moved from South America to U.S. via Contra- handista Aircraft and in household effects. B. Couriers traveling from South America to U.S. via commercial air and vehicle make probes at numerous Port of Entry. C. Seaman couriers on Chilean and Colombian vessels continue activity. JFK Airport, N.Y-------- Aug. 8,1970 Do________________ Aug. 20, 1970 Miami, Fla_ _ Sept. 2, 1970 Dulles Airport ---------- Oct. 5, 1970 Q .... Oct. 7,1970 Miami, FlaOct. 14, 1970 Hoboken, N.1 Oct. 12, 1970 Norfolk, Va __ Oct. 22, 1970 JFK Airport, N.Y-------- Nov. 11,1970 Miami, Fla_____________ Nov. 14, 1970 JFK Airport, N.Y-------- Nov. it, 1970 Do ---------------- Nov. 21, 1970 Miami, Fla ------------- Dec. 4,1970 Tampa, Fla_____________ Dec. 7, 1970 JFK Airport, N.Y-------- Dec. 10, 1970 Honolulu, Hawaii________ Dec. 11, 1970 Miami, Fla_____________ Jan. 20, 1971 Laredo, Tex____________ Feb. 14,1971 Quantity Smuggling method Country of (pounds) employed departure 2,'/z Body carry__________________ Argentina. 4j Suitcase_____________________ Chile-Mexico. 4 ----- do----------------------- Colombia. 26 Comm. Air-sec ---------------- Do. 8Y2 - do---------------------- Do. 34 Diplomat suitcase------------- Do. 6% Vessel_______________________ Chile. 4 -----do -----_---------------- Do. 1% Smugglers' vest_______________ Do. 12 Suitcase_______ ______ Peru. 8 ----- do------------ __________ Peru-Colombia. 5 Crew comm./air--------------- Colombia. 88 Cargo air___________________ Peru. 34 Vessel__ ----------------------- Chile. 11 Suitcase ---------------------- Bolivia. 8 ____do_______________________ Colombia, Mexico, Sidney. 16 ----- do ---------------------- Chile. 12 Rental vehicle_________________ Unknown via Mexico. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 290 __ _ Morehead City, N.C_ Mar. 8,1972 Niagara Falls, N.Y_ _ Mar. 10, 1972 JFK Airport, N.Y-------- Mar. 12, 1972 Miami, Fla ------------- Apr. 6, 1972 Houston, Tex ----------- Apr. 11, 1972 Miami, --- Apr. 15 1972 Los Angeles, Calif------- Apr. 19, 1972 Do - -- -------- --------do------- Bridgeport, Conn -------- Apr. 24, 1972 Miami, Fla_____________ Apr. 27, 1972 Do ------------------do------- Do_______________ May 7,1972 New York, N.Y--------------- do Miami, Fla_---___----- __do-______ New York, N.Y---------- May 14, 1972 New Orleans, La -------- May 15, 1972 Miami, Fla_____________ May 18,1972 DoMay 25 1972 , Costa New York, N.Y---------- May 26,1972 Miami, Fla_____________ May 28, 1972 New Orleans, La -------- May 29,1972 Miami, Fla____________ May 30, 1972 Philadelphia, Pa________ June 27,1972 JFK Air ort, N.Y-------- July 4,1972 p Miami, Fla_____________ July 17 1972 , Do________________ July 18,1972 New York, N.Y---------- July 19,1972 JFK Airport, N.Y. ________ _ do_______ Los Angeles, Calif....... July 21, 1972 Calexico, Calif.......... July 22, 1972 McAllen, Tex---------------- do_______ Mexico City Airport______ Feb. 16, 1971 Do ---------------- Feb. 19, 1971 Do________________ Feb. 21, 1971 Do________________ Feb. 22, 1971 Do--------------- -do------. Miami, Fla_____________ Feb.. 24, 1971 St. Thomas, V.I-________ Mar. 14,1971 New Orleans, La________ Mar. 23, 1971 Baltimore Airport_______ Apr. 20,1971 Los Angeles Airport_____ Apr. 27,1971 Philadelphia piers ------- May 5, 1971 Miami Airport -___------ May 17, 1971 New York piers--------- May 18,1971 San Antonio Airport_____ May 23,1971 Miami Airport__________ May 30, 1971 Do________________ June 5,1971 Los Angeles Airport___._ June 9,1971 Do________________ June 10,1971 Do________________ June 2Z, 1971 Miami Airport ---------- June 26, 1971 New Orleans, La------------- do_______ Miami Airport__________ June 28,1971 San Ysidro, Calif-------- July 3, 1971 Tucson________________ July 29,1971 Nogales________________ Sept. 7, 1971 Miami Airport ---------- Sept. 11, 1971 New York______________ Oct. 6,1971 Los Angeles Airport--___ Oct. 15,1971 JFK Airport, N.Y-------- Nov. 11, 1971 Los Angeles Airport- ---- Nov. 21,1971 JFK Airport, N.Y-------- Dec. 4,1971 San Ysidro,Calif -------- Dec. 8,1971 Los Angeles Airport ---------- do....... San Juan Airport -------- Dec. 11, 971 JFK Airport, N.Y__----- Dec. 23,1971 San Juan Airport_______ Jan. 9,1972 Miami Airport ---------- Jan. 3,1972 San Juan Airport ___ ____ Jan. Z3, 1972 JFK Airport, N.Y-------- Jan. 27, 1972 San Ysidro, Calif-------- Jan. 28, 1972 Los AngelesAirport_____ Feb. 1,1972 JFK Airport, N.Y-------- Feb. 2,1972 Miami Airport ---------- Feb. 4, 1972 Do________________ Feb. 10, 1972 JFK Airport, N.Y------------- do_______ Do____________ ___ Feb. 17, 1972 Miami Airport__________ Feb. 25, 1972 San Juan Airport ------------- do_______ Port Newark, N.J------- Mar. 6,1972 JFK Airport, N.Y------------- do___ _ Quantity Smuggling method Country of (pounds) employed departure 1 17 Suitcase______________________ Chile. 14 -----do----------------------- Do. 19 ----- do----------------------- Do. ' 18 -----do----------------------- Do. ' 4 - do------------- Do. 10 In-transit baggage switch .___- Unknown via Panama. 9 Suitcase______________________ Peru via Trinidad. 9 Tables via Air Cargo ----------- Chile. 734 Girdle-precleared_____________ Equador via Nassau. 232 Body carry_____________ _____ Colombia. 234 Body carry and crew quarters--- Chile. 2 Body carry ---- _------- _ _ Colombia. 532 Body carry and crew quarters--- Peru. 2 Body carry___________________ Do. 2 ----.do----------------------- Colombia. 2 Coffee cans_________________ Do. 7 Suitcase______________________ Mexico. 6A----- do--------------------- Do. 1 Body carry___________________ Colombia. 5 Suitcase______________________ Costa Rica. 4%----- do----------------------- Nicaragua. 3 -----do----------------------- Peru. 2) Body carry------------------- Monica, 3 Car-under front seat ------- _-- Do. 2Y2 Car -------------------------- Do. 232 Body carry___________________ Ecuador. 1932 Cargo-picture frames ------- __ Argentina. 432 Body carry-purse------------- Peru. 53. Body carry___________________ Chile. 1 Wooden statues in suitcase----- Bolivia. 10 Suitcase______________________ Spain. 4Y2 Car/spare tire_________________ Mexico. 3 Body carry____________ ______ Colombia. 1 Body carry-shoes in suitcase--- Do. 434 Body carry ------------------- Chile. 3 - ---do---------------------- Colombia. 54 Household effects--air freight--- Chile. I Purse________________________ Colombia. 632 Suitcase______________________ Ecuador. 2Y2 Body carry___________________ Mexico. 11 Body carry-suitcase ----------- Feru. 10 Suitcase______________________ Colombia. 23 Aircraft spare parts____________ Do. 4 Body carry------------------- Do. 4 Courier overcoat_______________ Panama. 6 Body carry___________________ Colombia. 64-----do----------------------- Ecuador. 1 _ do_______________________ Colombia. 1 Body carry-seaman----------- Do. 4Y2 11 pairs of shoes_____________ Do. 432 Seaman's quarters------------- Do. 232 Floorboard auto-teddy bear---- Canada. 2 Trousers pockets in suitcase---- Ecuador. 6% Suitcase____________________ Do. 232 Heels of shoes in suitcase----_- Colombia. Clothing---------------------- Do. 2 Body carry___________________ Peru. 232----- do----------------------- Do. 134n Mail------------------------ Unknown. 232 Cigarette cartons______________ Colombia. Y4 Books and film packs---------- Do. 2y Book covers__________________ Do. 2 do----------------- Do. 1% Picture frames----- ----------- Do. 7 Body carry___________________ Panama. I -----do----------------------- Do. 9Y2- 2 Undergarments______________ Colombia. 3 Mail parcel___________________ Do. I Attach8 case__________________ Do. 334 Body[carry___________________ Ecuador. 13+'-----do------------------ -- Colombia. 17 In girdles-body carry--------- Do. 2 Body carry___________________ Do. 532-- --do----------------------- Do. 1 Mail parcel-shoes_____________ Do. 3 Hidden on ship---------------- Do. 634 Suitcase______________________ Chile. 1234----- do----------?------------ Do. 11/ Body carry ___________________ Peru. 2 Station wagon---------------- Guatemala. 3 Body carry------------------- Mexico. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/1: CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Quantity Smuggling method Country of (pounds) employed departure Los Angeles Inter- July 23,1972 14 Suitcase ____________________ Peru. national Airport, Calif. Do________________ July 27,1972 2 Body carry___________________ Colombia. Miami, Fla_____________ July 28, 972 1 Mail parcel-lanterns---------- Do. Do July July 30,1972 2) Suitcase ----------- _....... _ Do. San Ysidro, Calif-------- Aug. 5,1972 2Y2 Vehicle ____________________ Mexico. Miami, Fla_____________ Aug. 16,1972 2 Body carry___________________ Colombia. Do________________ Aug. 21,1972 4 do ---------------------- Do. Los Angeles, Calif------- Aug. 28, 1972 1 Mail parcel -bellows .-------__- Ecuador. Do________________ Aug. 30, 1972 5 Body carry___________________ Chile. Miami, Fla------------------ do------- 13 Body carry-shoes ------- _----- Colombia. Do________________ Sept. 7, 1972 9 Body carry___________________ Chile. See large chart depicting morphine base and heroin smuggling routes through- out Europe as determined by seizures by European customs services and the listing of key seizures. The importance of the key seizures listed below is that they represent extreme- ly large amounts which have significant impact on U.S. supply. KEY EXAMPLES French customs---------------- 790 lbs., morphine base ---------- Marseille Harbor ---------------- Mar. 16,1971 Spanish customs--------------- 110 lbs., heroin ----------------- La Junquera,Spain -------------- Apr. 21,1971 Bulgarian customs_____________ 6841bs., morphine base ---------- Svilengrad, Bulgaria ----- -------- Apr. 29, 971 German customs_______________ 506 lbs., morphine base..--------- Schwarzbach, Germany ........ Dec. 23, 971 French customs---------------- 110 tbs., hero in----------------- Paris -------------------------- Dec. 24,1971 German customs --------------- 220 lbs., morphine base---------- Schwarzbach, Germany___________ Feb. 18,1972 French customs________________ 902Ibs.,heroin ------------------ Marseille Harbor ---------------- Mar. 1,1972 Do______________________ 321 lbs., morphine base---------- Menion,France -------- -........ Mar. 5,1972 Belgium and French police------ 264 lbs., heroin----------------- Brussels, Belgium --------------- May 16 972 Argentine Federal police__101 lbs. heroin _________________ Buenos Aires, Argentina ......... Aug. 30,1972 Venezuelan police-------------- 44 lbs., heroin____-__________-_- Caracas, Venezuela -------------- Do. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : C12A-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 HE GO 3 SEIZURES PA RT 2H 450 425 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 FISCAL YEAR BUREAU OF CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1 KILOGRAM = 2.2 POUNDS OR 1.000 GRAMS Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/273 CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 P JA N AHA SEIZURES NUMBERS IN ( )'EQUAL POUNDS (70,210) (sa, --- --_ --- -t. I . 4) 26.313) (10.207) (7 ,G56 ) (3,518) (2,769) (2,768) f} (1.933) ,s= (a91, U7) 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 FISCAL YEAR BUREAU OF CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1 KILOGRAM a 2.2 POUNDS OR 1,000 GRAMS Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 294 HAM M M SEIZURES (9, Y5'i) 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 FISCAL YEAR BUREAU OF CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1 KILOGRAM - 2.2 POUNDS. OR 1.000 GRAMS Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/~ CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 COCAINE (and ?thar narcotics, drugs) SEIZURES (:9) 200 (98) (45) I4Q) (37) 28) Oll (8) 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 FISCAL YEAR BUREAU OF CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1 KILOGRAM = 2.2 POUNDS OR 1,000 GRAMS Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 296 OPI M I SEIZURES is 60 61 62 .63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 FISCAL YEAR BUREAU OF CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1 KILOGRAM = 2.2 POUNDS OR 1,000 GRAMS Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01071: CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 DANGEROUS DRUG SEIZURES /b, A+/0; BUREAU OF CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alabama----------------------- Mobile -------- Alaska----------------- Anchorage ----- - Arizona___------------- Phoenix-Tuscon- Yuma____________ Arkansas------- Little Rock ------------------------- California------- Los Angeles-San Diego ------------------ _-_ San Francisco-Oakland -------- ___________________ Colorado----------------------- Denver------------------- Connecticut-------------------- Hartford ------------------ Delaware----------------------- Wilmington------------------------------------- District of Washington__________________________________ Florida_________________________ Miami-Tampa-Jacksonville__________________ Hawaii------------------------- Honolulu-------------------------------------- Georgia- ---------------------- Atlanta-------------- -------------_------------- Illinois ---------------------ChicagoPSpringfield Indiana------------------------ Indiana ois-Gar -----------------?------------- Targets invCompletestigationeds 2 38 4 2 ----- ------ 45 11 39 5 8 ------------- 13 5 1 ------------- 22 5 74 17 10 2 28 8 45 7 9 2 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 State Metropolitan areas Kentucky______________________ Louisville-Covington-Newport _____________________ Louisiana-- ------------------ .New Orleans-. ---------------------------------- Maine -------------------- -Bangor----------------------------------------- Maryland---------------------- Baltimore-------------------------------------- Massachusetts------------------ Boston----------------------------------------- Michigan--- Detroit ----------------------------------------- Minnesota______________________ St. Paul-Minneapolis_____________________________ Mississippi--------------------- Gulfport ---------------------------------------- Missouri----------------------- St. Louis-Kansas City ---------------------------- Nevada---------------------- Las Vegas-------------------------------------- New Hampshire_________________ Portsmouth_____________________________________ New Jersey____________________ Newark-Camden-------------------------------- M ew Mexico!------------------- Albuquerque ___--------______------------------- New York---------------------- Albany ----------------------------------------- Buffalo-Rochester _______________________________ New York City and suburbs______________________ North Carolina__________________ Greensboro-Charlotte -------------------- ________ Ohio--------------------------- Cincinnati-Dayton------------------------------- Cleveland--------------------------------------- Oklahoma---------------------- Oklahoma City. -------------------------------- Oregon ------------------------ Portland ---------------------------------------- Pennsylvania------ _------------ Philadelphia _____________________________.______ Pittsburgh-------------------------------- RhodeIsland_________ Providence_____________________________________ South Carolina__________________ Columbia________________________________------- Tennessee --------------------- Nashville-Mem phis______________________________ Texas_________________________ Austin-Houston-El Paso ___________-______________ Dallas------------------------------------------ Utah--------------------------_ Salt Lake City _-------------------------------- Virginia------------------------ Rich mond-Norfolk-Arlington-Alexandria____________ Washington--------------------- Seattle----------------------------------------- West Virginia------------------- Parkersburg____________________________________ Wisconsin---------------------- Milwaukee-------------------------------------- Total-:------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Treasury Department, Office of Law Enforcement, Sept. 1, 1972 TABLE II Completed Targets investigations 5 -------------- 13 4 1 ------------- 10 1 21 2 58 6 2 -------------- 1 ------------- 17 2 3 ------------ 3 1 61 8 11 2 10 6 12 35 138 1 17 -------------- 13 -------------- 8 -------------- 3 -------------- 12 1 41 1 16 5 1 ---------- 5 1 6 -------------- 43 12 4 1 2 -------------- 26 ---?--.------ 16 5 1 2 -------------- Major target assessments: Regular assessments_______________ 60 $7,710,730 -------------------------------------------------------- Jeopardy assessments r____-------------------------------------------------- 23 18,862,460 Tax-year termination a___________________________________________________ 33 8,642,629 Total-------------------- Minor target assessments: 8 Jeopardy assessments______________________________________________________ 58 2,273,352 Tax-year terminations ........ ---------------------------------------------- 740 28,705,629 Total -------------------------------------------------------------------- Currency--------- -------------------------------------------------------------- $1,990,126 $7,351,258 Property ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 87,238 1,549,174 Total dollars seized ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10,977,796 Cases recommended for prosecution_______________________________________________________________ 49 Criminal tax cases in U.S.courts awaiting trial_______________________________________________________ 23 Criminal tax convictions-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 I Jeopardy assessments are assessments of taxes made where a return has been filed or should have been filed, but where circumstances exist under which delay might jeopardize the collection of the revenue. 2 Termination of tax year is a computation of the tax due and assessment made where the time for filing the return has not become due where circumstances exist which delay might jeopardize the revenue. a These are'assessments made as a result of seizures by other jeopardize agencies of cash or other assets against current income of narcotic traffickers where delay might jeopardize collection of the revenue. Source: Treasury Department, Office of Law Enforcement, Sept.. 1,41972. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/0193: CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 New York City : 138 Major targets----------------------------------------------- Major target assessments (45) -------------------------------- $7, 406, 046 Minor target assessments 1 (70)------------------------------ Total assessments involving narcotic traffickers-------------- 12, 743, 764 Seizures involving Narcotic Traffickers: Currency --------------- ----------------------- 4,188,051 1 Property ------------------ 168,17 Total dollars seized------------------------------------ 4,356,222 Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- 10 1 Criminal tax cases in U.S. Courts awaiting trial---------------- 1 Criminal tax convictions------------------------------------- Washington, D.C.: Major targets----------------------------------------------- 22 Total assessments involving narcotic traffickers-------------- 1,477,519 Seizures involving narcotics traffickers: 879 44 ----------- Currency ----------------------------------- Property ----------------------------------------------- , 0 Total dollars seized------------------------------------ 44,879 Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- 2 2 Criminal tax eases in U.S. Courts awaiting trial---------------- 1 Criminal tax convictions------------------------------------- Austin-Houston-El Paso : 43 Major targets----------------------------------------------- Major target assessments (13)------------------------------- $1,576,515 Minor target assessments' (61) ------------------------------ 1,131,116 Total assessments involving narcotic traffickers-------------- 2,707,631 Seizures involving narcotics traffickers : 374 647 Currency ----------------------------------------------- Property ----------------------------------------------- , 46,505 Total dollars seized----------------------------------- 693,879 Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- 3 0 Criminal tax cases in U.S. Courts awaiting trial---------------- 0 Criminal tax convictions------------------------------------- Boston : Major targets----------------------------------------------- -------- 4 21 517,121 5 4 ) ------------------------ Major target assessments ( 786 218 1 Minor target assessments (56)------------------------------ , , Total assessments involving narcotic traffickers-------------- 7, 303, 365 Seizures involving narcotics traffickers : 710 373 Currency ----------------------------------------------- Property ----------------------------------------------- , 116,000 Total dollars seized------------------------------------ 489,710 Footnotes .at end of table. Major target assessments (8) -------------------------------- $1,238,685 Minor target assessments 1 (2) ------------------------------- 238,834 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : 9J61-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Boston-Continued Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- 1 Criminal tax cases in U.S. courts awaiting trial---------------- 1 Criminal tax convictions------------------------------------- 0 Chicago-Springfield : Major targets ------------------------------------------------ 45 Major target assessments (5) --------------------------------- $221,076 Minor target assessments' (37)------------------------------- $989,211 Seizures involving narcotic traffickers : Currency ----------------------------------------------- $78,909 Property ----------------------------------------------- 0 Total dollars seized------------------------------------ $78,909 Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- 1 Criminal tax cases in U.S. Courts awaiting trial--------------- 2 Criminal tax convictions------------------------------------- 0 Detroit::, Major targets------------------------------------------------ 58 Major target assessments (11) ------------------------------- $957,178 Minor target assessments' (45) ------------------------------ $1,058,506 Total assessments: involving narcotic traffickers-------------- $2,015,684 Seizures involving narcotic traffickers: Currency ----------------------------------------------- $110,370 Property ------------------------------------------------ $85 859 Total dollars seized------------------------------------ $196,229 Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- 3 Criminal tax cases iii U.S. Courts awaiting trial---------------- 4 Criminal tax convictions------------------------------------- 0 Hartford : Major targets------------------------------------------------ 18 Major target asses'sinents---------------------------------- ---- 0 Minor target assessments' (10) -------------------------------- $224, 539 Total assessments involving narcotic traffickers-------------- 224, 539 Seizures involving narcotics traffickers : ,Currency ----------------------------------------------- 14,555 Property ------------------------------------------------- 17,000 Total dollars seized------------------------------------- 31,555 'Cases recommended: for prosecution--------------------------- 1 Criminal tax cases in U.S. courts awaiting trial----------------- 0 Criminal tax convictions-------------------------------------- 0 Los Angeles-San Diego : Major targets------------------------------------------------ 45 Major target assessments (18) -------------------------------- $844,179 Minor target assessments' (107) ----------------------------- 7,104,504 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 301 Los Angeles-San Diego-Continued Seizures involving narcotic traffickers : Currency ------------------------------------------------ 892,829 Property ------------------------------------------------ 86,025 Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- 5 Criminal tax cases in U.S, courts awaiting trial----------------- 1 Criminal tax convictions-------------------------------------- 0 Miami-Tampa-Jacksonville: Major targets----------------------------------------------- 74 Major target assessments (26) ------------------------------- $9,864,190 Minor target assessments 1 (27) ------------------------------ 430, 237 Seizures involving narcotic traffickers : Currency ----------------------------------------------- 146,552 Property ----------------------------------------------- 292,544 Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- 1 Criminal tax cases in U.S. Courts awaiting trial---------------- 6 Criminal tax convictions------------------------------------- 3 Newark-Camden : Major targets---------------------------------------------- 61 Major target assessments (6) -------------------------------- $3,702,427 Minor target assessments1 (20) ------------------------------ 1,022,115 Seizures involving narcotic traffickers : Currency ----------------------------------------------- 270,190 Property ----------------------------------------------- 235,000 Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- -1 Criminal tax cases in U.S. Courts awaiting trial--------------- 0 Criminal tax convictions------------------------------------- 0 Philadelphia : Major targets------------------------------------------------ 41 Major target assesments (6) ---------------------------------- $161,772 Minor target assessments- (21) ------------------------------ 427, 154 Seizure involving narcotic traffickers : Currency ----------------------------------------------- 226,621 Property ----------------------------------------------- 24,725 Cases recommended for prosecution--------------------------- 0 Criminal tax cases in U.S. Courts awaiting trial---------------- 0 Criminal tax convictions-------------------------------------- 0 Phoenix-Tucson-Yuma: Major targets------------------------------------------------ 38 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 302 Phoenix-Tucson-Yuma-Continued Major target assessments (6)_________________________________ 115,897 Minor target assessments' (32)______________________________ 1,161,263 Total assessments involving narcotic traffickers ______________ 1,177,160 Seizures involving narcotic traffickers : Currency ----------------------------------------------- 178,955 Property ----------------------------------------------- 62,000 Total dollars seized____________________________________ 240, 955 Case recommended for prosecution____________________________ 3 Criminal tax cases in tJ.S. Courts awaiting trial________________ 0 Criminal tax convictions_____________________________________ 0 San Francrisco-Oakland: Major targets----------------------------------------------- 39 Major target assessments (9)_________________________________ 608,425 Minor target assessments' (42)_______________________________ 2,320,250 Total assessments involving narcotic traffickers_______________ 2, 928,675 Seizures involving narcotic traffickers : Currency ------j---------------------------------------- 327,666 Property -------- ! 171,485 Total dollars seized____________________________________ 499, 151 Cases recommended for prosecution___________________________ 3 Criminal tax cases in U.S. Courts awaiting trial________________ 2 Criminal tax convictions0 a See footnote 3 on table II. Source: Treasury Department, Office of Law Enforcement, Sept. 1, 1972. STOPPING ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC Arrests and type Number Increase over 1971 (percent) BNDD/Federal--------- ________________--------------------------------- D/State/loca---------------------- - ------- BN DD/foreign - -------------------------------------- --------?------------------------------------------ 4 579 2,588 504 107 15 79 Substance Quantity (pounds) Street value (millions) Percent change over 1971 Cocaine uivalent------------------------------- - ----------- 5,107 675 $998 74 +62 2 ------------------------------------------------- H a s h i s h - - 154,609 41 - -1-272 ----- Dangerous dru s (d s i 8, 257 36 -31 g o age un ts)__________ 207,094,395 420 +1,410 Total street value removed by BNDD, $1,570 million in fiscal year 1972 com- pared to $755 million in fiscal year 1971. "For each'dollar appropriated, twenty-five dollars was removed from the illicit trade." Conviction rate : percent Federal -------------- -- - 96 State ------------ ------------- Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/2791A-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Narcotics----------------------------------------------------------------------- 61.3 70.2 Marihuana--------------------------------------------------------------------- 41.8 34.1 Dangerous drugs-----------------------------------------------?-------------- 34.1 55.0 MONEY SEIZED $3,572,235 was seized and recovered and returned to the United States Treasury. DANGEROUS DRUGS (STIMULANTS, DEPRESSANTS, HALLUCINOGENS) Seized 207 million dosage units. Seized 43 clandestine labs with capacity to produce millions of dosage units of illicit tablets. Registered 516,298 legitimate drug handlers. Collected $2.7 million for deposit to U.S. Treasury. Arrested 22 violators as a result of compliance investigations. Disqualified 120 drug handlers by taking certificate or registration. Placed amphetamines in Schedule II with stringent controls and reduced authorized production quota. FOREIGN OPERATIONS Opened 8 new offices, 6 of which were in additional countries, increased agents 48 to 94. Provided productive intelligence to BNDD domestic. Regions and Customs Bureau resulting in record seizures in United States. Assisted foreign police in Europe, Central and South America and Far East in 504 arrests of major traffickers (including roundup of 43 in France). Seized with foreign police over 2 tons of heroin or its equivalent that never reached U.S. Worked with U.S. Ambassadors on variety of country problems aimed at inter- dicting international flow of illicit narcotics. STATE AND LOCAL Conducted 55 training schools for 3,977 police officers. Analyzed 20,591 evidence exhibits for state and local police. Assisted 13 states and 1 territory in passing Model Drug Abuse Act and assisted 15 other states with Bill pending. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Answered over 370,000 Inquiries. Distributed over 4.0 million publications. -Showed over 8,500 films. Assisted 20 communities in establishing drug abuse education programs. Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 INDEX (NOTE.-The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee attaches no significance to the mere fact of the appearance of the name of an individual or organization in this index.) A Page Action Program Against Drug Abuse---------------------------------- 260 Ad Hoc Committee on the Near East ---------------------------------- 270 Afghanistan -------------------------------------------------- 263, 264, 270 Government of------------------------------------------------- 263,264 Agrarian Code ------------------------------------------------------ 257 AID --------------------------------------------------------------- 282 Air America -------------------------------------------------------- 267 Air Force, Royal Lao------------------------------------------------ 266 Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau-------------------------------- 272 Amb (former princely state in Pakistan) ------------------------------ Andorra _-----------------------------------------------------------259 Argentina ----------------------------------------------------------- 277 Asia ---------------------------------------------------------------- 273 Asuncion ------------------------------------------------------------ 275 Austria ------------------------------------------------------------- 277 B Baltimore --------------------------------------------------------- 269, 285 Ban Houei Sal------------------------------------------------------- 266 Bangkok ------------------------------------------------------------ 267 Bar charts depicting seizures of heroin, marihuana, hashish, cocaine, opium, and dangerous drugs-------------------------------------- 292-297 Belgrade ------------------------------------------------------------ 261 Bonn --------------------------------------------------------------- 260 Boston ----------------------------------------------------------- 269, 285 Bucharest ----------------------------------------------------------- 261 Budapest ------------------------------------------------------------ 261 Bulgaria ------------------------------------------------------------ 261 Bureau of Customs--------------------------------------------------- 256, 272,281-284,286 Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) ------------------- 255-258, 260,261,264,266,269,271,272,274-277,282 Domestic Agents on Board, August 31, 1972 (table)----------------- 278 Foreign Agents on Board, August 31, 1972 (table)------------------ 279 Burma ------------------------------------------------------------ 265, 266 Burmese Government----------------------------------------------- 265, 266 Boussarath, B. Gen. Khamhou----------------------------------------- 266 G Cabinet Committee--------------------------------------------------- 270 Cabinet Committee on Internatonal Narcotics Control ----------- 263, 281, 284 Cabinet Committees on Narcotics-------------------------------------- 264 CADPIN ------------------------------------------------------------ 284 Cambodia ----------------------------------------------------------- 269 Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- 255, 256, 257, 273, 288 Canal Zone----------------------------------------------------------- 258 Caribbean ----------------------------------------------------------- 289 (I) Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74BOO415ROO0300230003-7 II Page Central Intelligence. Agency (CIA) --------------------------------- 255, 272 Central America------------------------------------------------------ 273 Chapman, Dr. R. A-------------------------------------------------- 256 Chicago ------------------------------------------------------------ 274 Chinese Irregular Forces (Cu)--------------------------------------- F268 Chitral (former princely state in Pakistan)_____________________________ 265 Cirillo case-------------------------------------------------------- 273,276 Cocaine Seizures, August 1970 to date (table)_______________________ 289-291 Colorado ----------'-------------------------------------------------- 275 Commission on Narcotics Drugs_______________________________________ 263 Commissioner of Narcotics (Hong Kong) ------------------------------ 268 Communist ---------------------------------------------------------- 266 Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1971____________________ 281 Continental Air Services______________________________________________ 267 Controlled Substances Act of 1970_____________________________________ 275 Convention an Psychotropic Substances-------------------------------- 270 Coordinator for International Narcotics Matters_______________________ 254 Czechoslovakia ----------------------------------------------------- 261 D Denver, Colo-------=------------------------------------------------- 275 Department of Defense----------------------------------------------- 284 Department of Justice---------------------------------------------- 271,282 Department of National Health and Welfare (Canada) ----------------- 256 Department of State--e ------------------------------- 253, 254, 258, 271, 273, 282 Detroit ------------------------------------------------------------ 285 Dir (former princely state in Pakistan) ------------------------------- 265 Directorate of Narcotics_____________________________________________- 269 District of Columbia------------------------------------------------- 285 Division of Narcotic Drugs------------------------------------------- 263 EE Eastland, Senator James O___________________________________________ 253 Echeverria, President (Mexico)_______________________________________ 257 ECOSOC ------------------------------------------------------------ 271 Europe -------------------------------------------------------- 254,259,289 Europe, Eastern------------------------------------------------------ 261 Europe, Western----------------------------------------------------- 261 F FAO --------------= - 263 Federal Bureau of Investigation_____________________________________ 272,275 Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) -------------------------------- 260, 261 Government ---------------------------------------------------- 260 Ministry of Defense ----------------------------------------------- 261 Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- 289 France ____________ _______________________________ 255,256,259,260,273,288 Frankfurt ----------------------------------------------------------- 260 French Judiciary Police______________________________________________ 260 G Germany ------------------------------------------------------------ 273 Germany, East------------------------------------------------------- 261 Golden Triangle_____________--------___-----------------------__-_- 265,268 Gross, Nelson----------------------------------------------------- 253-271 Groupe Special d'Investigation (GSI) (Laos) -------------------------- 266 Gurney, Senator Edward J-------------------------------------------- 253 H Hardin, Clifford, Secretary of Agriculture------------------------------ 262 Him Gonzalez, Joaquin----------------------------------------------- 258 Hong Kong -------- =----------------------------------------------- 268,269 Government ---7------------------------------------------------- 268 Hungary ----------=------------------------------------------------- 261 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74BOO415ROO0300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 I page Illicit Traffic in the Middle East, Ad Hoe Committee on------------------ 263 Indianapolis -------------------------------------------------------- 285 Ingersoll, John E------------------------------------------ 253,256,271-280 Inter-Agency Narcotics Control Committee----------------------------- 254 Interdepartmental Task Force on Narcotics, Marihuana, and Dangerous Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------ 281 Interministerial Task Force------------------------------------------- 261 Internal Revenue Service ------------------------------------------- 272, 281 International Narcotics Control Board --------------------------------- 264 Iran -------------------------------------------------------------- 264,270 IRS -------------------------------------------------------------- 284, 285 Islamabad ------------------------------------------------------------ 264 Italy ------------------------------------------------------------- 273, 277 J Jackson, "Slippery"-------------------------------------------------- 275 Jaguar case--------------------------------------------------- 273, 275, 276 JFK Airport--------------------------------------------------------- 258 K Kabul -------------------------------------------------------------- 264 Kansas City--------------------------------------------------------- 275 Khakweyei (KKY) (Burmese Self-Defense Force) --------------------- 266 Khmer Republic------------------------------------------------------ 269 L Law Enforcement Assistance Administration--------------------------- 282 Lao Government, Royal--------------------------------------------- 266,267 Lao Narcotics Control Law-------------------------------------------- 267 Laos -------------------------------------------------------------- 206,273 Las Perlas Islands--------------------------------------------------- 258 le Mouel, Francois--------------------------------------------------- 260 Lima, Peru---------------------------------------------------------- 275 Listing of Key seizures by foreign customs and police services (table)____ 291 Los Angeles---------------------------------------------------------- 285 Latin America------------------------------------------------------- 254 Luang Prabang------------------------------------------------------ 266 Maps depicting routes followed in smuggling heroin and cocaine into the United States---------------------------------------------------- 287,288 Marcellin, Interior Minister------------------------------------------- 260 Marseilles, France______________________________________________ 255, 259, 260 Mexican Government------------------------------------------------- 257 Mexican-United States border----------------------------------------- 284 Mexico ----------------------------------------------- 254-257,273,277,288 Mexico City-------------------------------------------------------- 256,257 Miami -------------------------------------------------------------- 285 Middle East-------------------------------------------------------- 260,270 Ministry of Agriculture (Laos) --------------------------------------- 267 Ministry of Finance (France)---------------------------------------- 260 Ministry of Interior (France) ---------------------------------------- 260 Ministry of Public Health (Laos) ------------------------------------- 267 Mitchell, Attorney General____________________________________________ 260 Montreal ----------------------------------------------------------- 256 Morin, Marcel------------------------------------------------------ 260 Munich ------------------------------------------------------------- 260 N Narcotics Board (Pakistan) ------------------------------------------- 265 Narcotics Intelligence Bureau (Pakistan) ----------------------------265 New York-------------------------------------------- 258, 275, 281, 285, 288 New York City---------------------------------------------------- 260, 269 Nixon, President------------------------------------ 265, 271, 281, 284, 286 Northwest Frontier Province------------------------------------------ 264 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 IV O Page Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement---------------------------------- 272 Office of Compliance Investigations------------------------------------ 277 Office of Public Safety ----------------------------------------------- Operation Cooperation------------------------------------------ 254, 257, 281 Operation Intercept________________________________________________ 257, 281 Ottawa ------------------------------------------------------------- 256 P Pakistan --------------------------------------------------------- 254, 270 Government of--------------------------------------------------- 265 Pakse -------------------------------------------------------------- 266 Pompidou, President (France) ---------------------------------------- 260 Panama ---------------------------------------------------------- 257, 258 Panamanian Ambassador to Taiwan----------------------------------- 258 Panamanian Ciistoms-=------------- -------------------------------- 258 Panamanian Government--------------------------------------------- 258 Panamanian National Guard------------------------------------------ 258 Paraguay ----------------------------------------------------------- 259 Paris --------------------------------------------------------------- 275 Philippine's -------------------------- ---------------------------------- 277 Phouma, Prime Minister Souvanna----------------------------------- 266, 267 Prague ------------------------------------------------------------- 261 President, The------------------------------------------------- 254, 255, 270 R Richard, Rafael A., Jr------------------------------------------------- 258 Ricord, Auguste--------------------------------------------------- 259, 281 Ricord case---------------------------------------------------------- 276 Rio Grande River---------------------------------------------------- 272 Rogers, William, Secretary of State----------------------------------- 253, 281 Rolph, Norman------------------------------------------------------ 268 Rossides, Eugene T--------------------------------------------- 253. 281-303 Royal Canadian Mounted Police--------------------------------------- 256 S Saigon -------------------------------------------------------------- 276 San Francisco------------------------------------------------------- 285 San Juan----------------------------------------------------------- 288 Seattle -------------------------------------------- 285 ---------------- Secret Service------------------------------------------------------- 272 Secretary of the Treasury-------------------------------------------- 285 Single Convention--------------------------------------------------- 256.263 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Protocol Amending---------------- 270 Smaldone, Eugene-------------------------------- ------------ 275 Sophia -------------------------------------------------------------- 261 Sourwine, J. G----------=-------------------------------------------- 253 South America--------------------------------------------- 259, 273, 288, 289 South Vietnam---------- -------------------------------------------- 277 Southeast Asia ---------- ------------------------------ 254,265,270,284,289 Spain -------------------------------------------------------------- 259,288 Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention------------------------ 261) Special Narcotics Organization (SNO) ------------------ 267, 268 ------------- Stroessner, President (Paraguay) ------------------------------------- 259 Suarez (Manuel Dominguez) ------------------------------------------ 274 Suarez case--------------------------------------------------------- 273,276 Swat (former princely state in Pakistan) ------------------------------ 265 T Tables showing significant United States and Canadian seizures of heroin and cocaine------------------------------------------------------ 289-291 Taiwan ------------------------------------------------------------- 258 Thai Government--------------------------------------------------- 268 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7 Approved For Release 2005/01/27: CIA-RDP74BOO415ROO0300230003-7 page 273 Thailand ---------------------------------------------------------- 267, 269 Thieu, President----------------------------------------------------- 258 Tocumen Airport----------------------------------------------------- 256 Toronto --------------------------------------------- ---------------- --_-___--_ 281, 284, 285 Treasury, Department of--------------------- 255, 261, 262, 263, 270, 273, 277 Turkey ------------------------------------- 254, 262 Turkish Government----------------------------------------------- 262 ---------------- Parliament ------------------------------------ U 256, 264, 266, 268, 270 United Nations--------------------------------------- 256 Commission on Narcotic Drugs for Drug Abuse Control------------------------------ 256, 263, 270 UnitGommisssoner of - C---us-to--m-s---2&1--259, 261-267 270 272, 274 277, 281-285, 289 -------------------------------------- 2 Customs _ 257 Embassy in Afghanistan--------------- -------------------------- 261 Embassy in Iran------------------------------------------------- Embassy in Islama'bead------------------------------------------- 265 Embassy in Kabul------------------------------------------------ 264 ----------- 258 Embassy, 1'anama------------------------------------- 261 sy in Turkey ---------------------------------------------- Government 25, 259, 265, 268, 272, 281, 282, 283, 284 ----------- -------------- V 256 Vancouver ---------------------------------- ---------- ------- 266, 267 Vientiane -------------------------------------------------------- Vietnam ------------------------------------------------------------ 269 W Walters, Johnnie M-------------------------------------------------- 285 Wan Pen-Fen------------------------------------- -------------- 276 Waslxington -------------------------------------- 254, 256, 257, 275, 284, 285 Washington Conference on international Narcotics Matter-------------- 27700 WestGermany ----------------------------------------------------- 269 World Opium Survey 1972 (survey)----------------------------------- Y Yugoslavia ---------------------------------------------------------- 261 Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP74BOO415ROO0300230003-7