HEARINGS - WORLD DRUG TRAFFIC AND IT'S IMPACT ON U.S. SECURITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP74B00415R000300230003-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 59
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 5, 2005
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: September 18, 1972
• Content Type: OPEN

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