Hive Law and Order

	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links
	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links

	2 Online, 0 Active		You are not logged in

This is a historical archiveThe forum is read-only. Private information has been removed. It is not possible to login.

	Law and Order	Thread: Previous Forum index Next

All 48 posts Subject: Bush's Meth Plan Please login to post Down

abolt
(Comandante A)
11-01-04 05:14
No 539033
User Picture       Bush's Meth Plan

Drug czar drafts plan to choke off meth flow
The multipronged initiative proposes limits on the essential ingredients for the drug, along with monitoring and other steps

Sunday, October 31, 2004
STEVE SUO

The Bush administration has proposed a sweeping plan to choke off the flow of chemicals responsible for a steady rise in methamphetamine abuse.

The plan, prepared by the White House drug czar's office, acknowledges that traffickers have circumvented existing rules and that "aggressive new approaches" may be needed.

Federal regulators would impose new restrictions on the import of bulk ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, the main ingredients in meth. The government would estimate legitimate U.S. demand for cough and cold medicines made from the chemicals and cap imports at that amount.

Officials also would strengthen the international system for monitoring the flow of chemicals from overseas manufacturers in India, China, Germany and the Czech Republic.

And federal agencies would encourage drug manufacturers to develop pseudoephedrine products that cannot be converted to meth.

The plan, unveiled this past week, calls on Congress to close the loophole that allows stores to sell unlimited quantities of pseudoephedrine pills in "blister packs." Sales would be limited to 9 grams, or about 300 pills, at a time.

"I think they're spot on with these recommendations, and we need to make sure that they now happen," said Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., one of the founders of the congressional Meth Caucus.

The White House plan comes three weeks after The Oregonian's five-part series "Unnecessary Epidemic" concluded that an international strategy to deprive meth traffickers of their ingredients could roll back the tide of meth abuse.

The series -- based on an original analysis of drug arrests, emergency room admissions, rehab cases, prices and purities -- showed that strategies like those proposed by the White House hold promise. Meth cannot be made without either ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. There are only nine major producers of these legal chemicals in the world, making meth traffickers uniquely vulnerable to government pressure. laugh laugh laugh

The newspaper's investigation revealed two periods in the 1990s when effective chemical controls caused the supply of meth to dry up, causing use of the drug to decline significantly. The investigation found that those overlooked victories could be repeated with a comprehensive, international strategy to deny traffickers the chemical ingredients that they need.

Timing of the plan

The White House plan was in the works before the newspaper's investigation was published. It also addresses the problem of illegal pharmaceutical sales over the Internet, as well as synthetic "club drugs" such as Ecstasy.

How the proposal will be received in Congress remains uncertain. Over the past decade, lawmakers have been reluctant to impose restrictions that might hurt consumers of cold medicine. Lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry have opposed many such efforts.

In addition, the plan lays out ambitious goals without explaining how they might be achieved. It calls, for example, on the government to "encourage" pharmaceutical companies to develop a meth-proof cold pill, but it offers no incentives.

Baird, who represents Southwest Washington, said he had spent a long time attempting to persuade the administration to address the broader causes of the meth epidemic. "It's gratifying that they now seem to have at least addressed this," he said. "It's taken a while."

Baird said he plans to meet with the White House drug czar, John Walters, to ask what help he needs on Capitol Hill to move the proposals forward.

"Unheralded success"

In a 74-page report outlining the proposal, the drug czar and Attorney General John Ashcroft assert that the federal government's past clampdowns on the supply of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine were "a largely unheralded law enforcement success." But the report also notes that the purity of meth, a key measure of the drug's availability, has doubled since 1999.

According to the report, Mexican drug cartels, which operate massive "superlabs" in California, have adapted to controls on finished pseudoephedrine pills in Canada. There is some evidence they have turned to bulk ephedrine powder smuggled through Canada and pseudoephedrine tablets smuggled from Asia into Mexico.

The report calls international cooperation on the control of meth ingredients critical, and it says the regulatory system set up by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration "is meaningful only insofar as it is enforced."

DEA officials in recent years have increased their scrutiny of companies applying to sell or import chemicals such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, the report finds, calling the screening process "more rigorous than ever."

In addition to 14 specific recommendations for chemical control, the report calls for a broad set of prevention efforts in schools, development of meth-specific treatment initiatives, and greater cooperation with authorities in Mexico and Canada.

Steve Suo: 503-221-8288; stevesuo@news.oregonian.com

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/109913794449470.xml#continue

http://www.terrorready.net/index.asp

Stonium
(BEE-OTCH)
11-01-04 07:32
No 539043
      RE: Your Highlighted Text

Gee, Brain. Will be interesting to see how long it takes them retract that statement. cool

_{Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
-Howard Zinn}

ApprenticeCook
(Hive Addict)
11-01-04 11:53
No 539065
      its better for them to say this and make ...

its better for them to say this and make everyone think they are cutting the throats of meth producers....

hahaha, and how many ways are there from heaps of other precurors? shit.....

-AC

Its just my opinion, but no-one listens to me anyway, and rightly so...

spaceman1964
(Newbee)
11-01-04 20:38
No 539113
      swis has heard.....

swis has heard from a very respected bee in this community, that the ephedrine reduction synth has maybee 18mos shelf life left frown . it is threads like this that make swis believe even more that this is true mad . and let swis tell you, he fully believes his source cool . STOCK UP MY FELLOW BEES, STOCK UP!!!!!   and in the meantime, remember, the bees will allways make the honey wink EDIT oh yeah, if you still can, vote kerry!!!!!

may the meth godz smile upon me or i shall sleep long time

psychokitty
(«»)
11-02-04 02:05
No 539148
      Undigestable pseudoephedrine

And federal agencies would encourage drug manufacturers to develop pseudoephedrine products that cannot be converted to meth.

How they plan to do this and still make the modified pills digestable is beyond me. It seems that if these legislators had their way, the possibility that a portion of OTC cold medication consumers would get sick as a result of new pill formulations would be an accepatable risk as long as the level of nationwide meth consumption goes down.

Captain_America
(Über-Führer die Ironie)
11-02-04 09:01
No 539196
      How they plan to do this and still make the...

How they plan to do this and still make the modified pills digestable is beyond me.

They can never do this, ppl will allways bee able to pull out ephedrine as long as it is in there. The only thing they can do is to ban ephedrine, but it will solve nothing, meth will still bee made from ephedrine. It seems that the more escalated the war on meth gets the more the meth spreads. Look europe, you can get red phosphorus, iodine and ephedrine so easily it is redicilous, but still almoust nobody makes meth.

It seems that if these legislators had their way, the possibility that a portion of OTC cold medication consumers would get sick as a result of new pill formulations would be an accepatable risk as long as the level of nationwide meth consumption goes down

Again, it will be stupid to put anything in those pills, it is useless. This always reminds me of those protections (Safedisc, FlexLM, CdCops) software companies put on their software, those protections go down faster than light..

http://www.junkmusik.com/junkvideo.mov

Unobtainium
(Minister of Propaganda)
11-02-04 09:28
No 539199
User Picture       Re: And federal agencies would encourage drug...

And federal agencies would encourage drug manufacturers to develop pseudoephedrine products that cannot be converted to meth.

Just like they've been doing for the past 5 years. This is nothing new, just political posturing before an election. These aren't sweeping changes of the current drug ppolicy, it's just more of the same old bullshit they've been doing for years.

Milk rots your brain.

Precursor2112
11-03-04 13:51
      Meth Competes with Coke
(Rated as: insignificant)

Polverone
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 06:59
No 539607
      It could be pretty effective

You only need to browse the Stimulants forum here, or similar forums elsewhere on the internet, to get the impression that there are a lot of people who are utterly reliant on pills for their meth-making needs. If pills become so regulated and "gakked" that small-scale pill-reliant cooks disappear as a breed, it could be a victory of sorts for the drug warriors. The supply of meth might not dry up, but they can claim a victory if lots of labs disappear. Never mind that many "labs" were actually somebody's bathroom and cranked out a whopping 10 grams at a time.

It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.

spaceman1964
(Newbee)
11-04-04 19:04
No 539686
User Picture       Is it possible.........

to make 10g at a time? cool just kidding, but really, one thing is for sure, nobodies trying real hard to work themselves out of a job. so is it possible that in the near future that E could be regulated to eleminate all the nano cooks? for sure! will it? we'll have to wait and see. i do know that many bees are probably working on this scenario right now, and some are already unable to get a decent amount of E. remember, there are many roads to meth, they just happen to be longer roads. E is the short road, and swis just happens to hate long drives. tongue but hey, if he has too, he'll gass up and go go go....... wink go.........

may the meth godz smile upon me or i shall sleep long time

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
11-04-04 19:48
No 539693
      its coming

Its coming.

Either in the form of scheduling ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as schedule V drugs, or by convincing the manufacturers to produce (-)(-)pseudoepehedrine.

You have a little time left to learn an alternate route.

It will happen faster than you think...and then we could close the stim forum down, but the load will be small enough by then it could be left active for the nostalgia involved.

You know, nostalgia isn't what it used to be...

Geez

mostly harmless

tina_craig
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 19:55
No 539694
User Picture       Do you think manufacturers will give in to...

Do you think manufacturers will give in to this? You know that they know most of their profits come from people buying their shit to produce meth.

Tina Craig worked for me!!

syschk
(Stranger)
11-04-04 19:58
No 539695
      changing addictions?

If meth is no longer an option... Does this mean that cocain sales are going to go through the roof?

shadow man keeps me company

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
11-04-04 20:01
No 539696
      there will be meth

There will be meth. There will meth made by HI from ephedrine and from pseudoephedrine. But there will not be the small home meth labs like there have been. Most meth will be made from alternate routes... they shut down P2P dope, and ephedrine, the pseudoephedrine became the principal route to meth. When those are gone, another method will come to the forefront, then another. They don't realize that meth is going to be with them from here on out... just not the meth produced in the small home labs supplied from the Walmarts and grocery stores of the world.

mostly harmless

tina_craig
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 20:09
No 539697
User Picture       coke isn't near as good as meth, IMHO.

coke isn't near as good as meth, IMHO.

Tina Craig worked for me!!

spaceman1964
(Newbee)
11-04-04 20:57
No 539702
      How does........

the ol' saying go about some squirrel dude gathering and saving his acorns/nuts, or whatever squirrel dude needs for the winter? my fellow bees, buy your limit EVERYTIME you go grocery shopping or any type of shopping for that matter!!! then pray to the Meth Godz every night (like we dont anyways wink !) that were just a little, OK, A LOT, paranoid on this issue. be safe out there bees!

may the meth godz smile upon me or i shall sleep long time

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
11-04-04 21:34
No 539710
User Picture       > Do you think manufacturers will give in...

> Do you think manufacturers will give in to this?

Yes they will, because they have no other choice. Besides, pfed certainly isn't the backbone of the US pharm industry. Quite the contrary. The sheer amount of suppliers means that all of them will only lose a little profit, and even when some of them end belly up, big fucking deal, only a hundred emplyees affected, that's not enough to cause a big outrage. Do you really think that anyone of them is making billions of dollars with pfed?

> just not the meth produced in the small home labs supplied from the Walmarts and
> grocery stores of the world.

Hate to interrupt, but in many countries medications cannot be bought at the grocery store. Some even have to do entirely without Walmart, because for them the next Walmart is 3000 miles away. The US is not (yet) the world, and some parts of the world will continue to boil their pfed in HI long after the last North American meth cook has been busted cooking some 2004 vintage pills in a motel in Bumfuck, Idaho.

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

psychokitty
(«»)
11-04-04 23:29
No 539736
      There will be meth indeed . . .

One could still synthesize P2P form OTC chems starting primarily from cassia oil or oil of bitter almonds and then reductively aminate with either nitromethane or methylamine. If mercuric chloride or sonication (theoretical process) isn't available to amalgamate the aluminum, sodium dithionite can be used (though to date, I have yet to see a published proceedure but several references claim it can be done).

As for alternative stimulants (cathinones), propiophenone can be synthesized easily. Bromination of propiophenone is even easier. Amination via methylamine, dimethylamine, ammonia, or sodium saccharin, I assume is no problem.

So obviously, the regulation of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine is not going to make a dent in the domestic market. However, it will make a dent in the lives of nasal congestant and cold sufferers. That right there is the real travesty.

jackhole
(Hive Bee)
11-05-04 10:27
No 539830
      Pseudoephedrine will prevail

Pseudoephedrine will continue to exist for cold and allergy sufferers. Pseudoephedrine is profitable and highly effective as medication; it is highly beneficial to the manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, consumers, etc. It will just (or continue to) be available only by going to the drug store and requesting it from the pharamacist.

Simply placing pseudoephedrine-containing products behind the counter and available only via pharmacist is sufficient to remedy the meth-lab crisis in America. In Oklahoma alone, lab busts have dropped by more than 50% since they begun doing this.

Jizzy Jizzy Bang Bang

Jade
(soccer mom)
11-05-04 11:11
No 539837
User Picture       part 1 of 2

Tuesday, October 05, 2004
STEVE SUO

Thomas Narog stood outside his rented storage unit in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., one day in July 1999 while a federal inspector checked the lock.

The 66-year-old semiretired mortgage broker wanted to go into a new business, but he needed the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's approval. He wanted to sell pseudoephedrine pills from the storage unit.

While Narog had no background in pharmaceuticals, he also had no criminal record, and neither did the man he claimed as his sole customer. The inspector handed Narog some brochures that warned pseudoephedrine can be used to make methamphetamine, then told him to report any suspicious orders to the DEA.

Two weeks later, Narog had his permit, and Seaside Pharmaceutical Co. was in business. It proceeded to supply millions of pseudoephedrine pills to meth labs, federal law enforcement officials say.

The Narog case, outlined in DEA and court records, illustrates a central reason the nation failed to keep vital chemicals from meth traffickers in the 1990s.

The DEA did not make full use of the powers it had won from Congress to shut down illicit sales of the key meth ingredients. Instead, it created an honor system that took distributors such as Narog at their word.

Some lied.

Narog was charged with supplying the meth trade, and his trial exposed gaps in DEA procedures.

The DEA inspector who reviewed Narog's application testified that he never contacted Narog's purported customer, an investor in a Florida grocery chain. That customer, in turn, told the court that Narog had spoken to him about selling cigarettes, not pseudoephedrine.

DEA agents began watching Narog eight months after granting his license, when his TruChoice tablets started showing up in huge quantities at California meth superlabs. By then, DEA officials say, Narog had bought 17 million pseudoephedrine pills -- enough to treat 600,000 colds for a week or make a day's supply of meth for 1.4 million heavy users. Prosecutors said Narog's business was part of a cross-country network of warehouses and intermediaries that routed the pseudoephedrine into California via Oregon. Narog was convicted in 2002 of supplying the meth trade, but an appeals court this year ordered a new trial because of improper jury instructions.

Narog applied for DEA registration under a federal law designed to prevent meth traffickers from obtaining the chemicals they needed. Companies that wanted to sell pseudoephedrine were typically asked to name their proposed customers and suppliers. But the drug agency's inspectors did not always require answers. And they did not consistently verify what they were told.

To keep a DEA permit, a dealer was supposed to record all purchases and sales, and report any suspicious customers.

But the drug agency rarely did random audits to see whether companies were complying, a review of DEA and court records shows.

The law, which took effect in 1997, empowered the agency to revoke a company's license if allowing sales to continue was "inconsistent with the public interest."

However, DEA records obtained by The Oregonian through the Freedom of Information Act show that 35 of 129 companies whose products were found in meth labs received three or more warning letters without losing their licenses. One registered pseudoephedrine seller on the East Coast remained in business after 47 warning letters -- most recently in May 2003, the records show.

More than 200 DEA permit-holders did business from houses, mobile homes or apartments, The Oregonian's investigation found. The newspaper found at least 11 companies listed addresses that are public storage facilities.

DEA and court records show that the agency gave pseudoephedrine permits to at least two companies convicted of federal crimes. One was convicted of interstate transport of stolen goods, the other of importing counterfeit pharmaceuticals.

The DEA allowed some pill manufacturers to keep licenses despite repeatedly selling large quantities of cold tablets to people who were later convicted of meth trafficking. Several current and former DEA officials said the drug agency has historically placed a greater emphasis on cocaine and heroin. Some veteran agents, they said, disparagingly referred to meth and other synthetic drugs as "kiddie dope."

In a statement, the DEA called that characterization a "gross misrepresentation" of how its agents view methamphetamine.

The drug agency said it moved in 2000 to tighten scrutiny over companies that sell pseudoephedrine. The DEA said it now requires inspectors to verify customers, check criminal backgrounds and visit the business addresses listed by applicants.

The DEA said it has always accorded a "high priority" to the battle against meth traffickers and the criminals who supply their ingredients. Officials declined The Oregonian's repeated requests to interview DEA Administrator Karen Tandy or any other high-ranking official. However, Terry Woodworth, the agency's deputy director of diversion control, acknowledged last year that the DEA had approved companies it should not have.

"It calls into question the effectiveness of the law, the effectiveness of the regulatory controls, the effectiveness of the regulatory implementation, as well as the effectiveness of the law enforcement," said Woodworth, who has since retired.

"Certainly, we've learned some lessons," he said. "We've made some mistakes."

Big-money "medicine"

Congress began cracking down on the chemicals used to make methamphetamine in 1988. Each time new controls were imposed, the traffickers shifted to other chemicals that were unregulated.

By 1995, a combination of U.S. regulations and foreign export controls had shut down the supply of ephedrine, the main ingredient of meth at the time. So Mexican drug cartels, which had pioneered the superlabs in California that churned out 80 percent of the nation's meth, began buying huge quantities of ephedrine's chemical sibling, pseudoephedrine.

While Congress and the DEA slowly worked out a system to regulate pseudoephedrine from 1995 to 1997, imports to the United States surged by 27 percent, according to federal trade statistics. At the same time, sales of cold medication grew 4 percent. DEA officials think meth traffickers were stockpiling the chemical in anticipation of federal control.

The pills often were made by little-known purveyors of generic vitamins, herbal remedies and over-the-counter medicines on the East Coast. They sold their products to middlemen who supplied knickknacks and candy to gas station mini-marts. Middle Eastern immigrants in the wholesale trade called their product dawa in Arabic. To their Mexican customers in California, it was la medicina. In any language, "the medicine" meant big money.

The volumes were staggering. Mainstream makers of cold pills sold their product in foil "blister packs" of 30 pills each. Pill companies catering to Mexican cartels packed their pseudoephedrine into bottles that held 120 pills, and the bottles were crammed into crates that held as many as 17,000 pills each.

Court records show that in 1997, at least five little-known companies suspected of supplying the meth trade rivaled the sales of the leading name-brand cold medicine, Sudafed.

But in December 1997, the DEA finally had the authority to control the last remaining aspect of the trade in meth chemicals.

The agency first had gained the authority to turn away imports of ephedrine powder, then the power to approve or reject companies seeking to sell ephedrine tablets. Now, it would decide who could sell pseudoephedrine products.

The meth trade, squeezed by each tightening of the chemical supply, was destined for a crushing blow. But only if the DEA took full advantage of its new powers.

Flawed enforcement

At first, the new system seemed to be working as a deterrent. Mark Reichel, a federal public defender whose clients include drug suspects in Fresno, Calif., said meth cooks ran short of pseudoephedrine. "There was a big freakout," Reichel said. "They were just doing anything to get their hands on pills."

On the street, federal data show, the purity of methamphetamine began to fall, as did several indicators of meth abuse such as rehab and emergency room admissions. In California, DEA officials put pressure on businesses that sold pseudoephedrine products, including those produced by Hammer Corp., a major Georgia manufacturer. Hammer's pills had been repeatedly found in California meth labs, according to a federal search warrant affidavit.

California agents pursued multiple criminal cases against some of the distributors. Three other purveyors of Hammer products withdrew their state and federal applications for registration after the DEA raised questions. By 1998, Hammer's sales were down 75 percent from the year before.

But while the California DEA was turning up the heat, the DEA office in Atlanta, where Hammer was located, granted the company's application to sell pseudoephedrine in April 1998.

"It kind of looks like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing, doesn't it?" said Samantha Spangler, a federal prosecutor in Sacramento who worked on the Hammer case. "I think there may have been that culture of lack of communication in law enforcement between the left coast and the right coast."

Hammer's products continued to show up in the hands of criminals after it was licensed, according to court records. The company eventually pleaded guilty to supplying the meth trade -- its products tied to 71 meth labs, dumpsites, drug suspects and undercover purchases from 1996 through 1999.

Hammer officials did not respond to written questions from The Oregonian.

Beyond inconsistency, DEA's approval process had deeper flaws. New Jersey pill-maker NVE Pharmaceuticals Inc. applied for a DEA permit in 1997 while its founder and president, Robert Occhifinto, was in federal prison serving an 18-month sentence. He was convicted of laundering $350,000 from ephedrine sales to a California meth maker.

According to the DEA's decision, published in the Federal Register, NVE's application portrayed Occhifinto's conviction as a failure to file proper paperwork. It also omitted another conviction, the DEA said. Federal court records show Occhifinto was convicted in 1991 of smuggling more than a kilogram of hashish from Jamaica.

DEA officials took two years to reject Occhifinto's application. But the DEA allowed pending applicants to keep doing business during the review. In that time, Occhifinto's company made 36 sales totaling 3.5 million pseudoephedrine tablets to a customer not registered with the DEA, the agency said.

NVE officials told a DEA appeals officer that they took steps to ensure customers were legitimate; in fact, NVE told the DEA about the sales of 3.5 million pills to the unregistered customer. But the DEA cited the sale as one of the grounds for rejecting NVE's application, effective December 1999.

Mountain Express

The DEA had the power to review records of companies registered to sell pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, but the biggest prosecutions of illegal chemical sales seldom arose from routine audits.

The most wide-ranging investigation after the pseudoephedrine law was enacted, for example, was initiated not by the DEA but by an alert security officer at a Federal Express office in Los Angeles.

In September 1999, the officer opened a suspicious box and found thousands of pseudoephedrine pills. When the recipient arrived, the FedEx employee tailed him to his destination and called the DEA, according to an investigator's affidavit filed in federal court.

The package was sent by Hassan Zaghmot, an Aurora, Colo., resident whose application to sell pseudoephedrine was approved by the DEA in July 1998.

After receiving his license, Zaghmot fabricated an elaborate paper trail showing shipments to legitimate customers, according to government testimony. However, it proved unnecessary because the DEA didn't check his records until after the FedEx tip. The ensuing investigation of Zaghmot, dubbed Operation Mountain Express, revealed a national web of deception. DEA officials said businesses across the country had obtained DEA pseudoephedrine permits to form a 10-man syndicate called "the Commission" with Zaghmot. Its purpose, according to the DEA, was to set black-market prices and coordinate shipments.

By the time the agents shut down the ring in 2000, officials said, the Commission and its customers had moved an estimated 3 metric tons of pills to meth labs -- enough for 36 million doses of meth at street purity.

Mitchel Krause, attorney for a Florida man convicted of illegally selling Zaghmot's and Narog's pseudoephedrine, said the DEA did little more than rubber-stamp the licenses of such wholesalers. He said the wholesalers appreciated that DEA officials were not watching closely.

"I don't know if they looked the other way," Krause said of DEA officials, "or whether they were just negligent in what they did. "Maybe they didn't think the defendants would figure it out."

Cultural divide

The DEA has always been divided on the importance of controlling synthetic drugs and their ingredients. The job of chemical control fell to civilian employees called diversion investigators. They had no authority to serve warrants, pay informants or carry guns. Agency veterans say the door-kicking, Mafia-infiltrating special agents of DEA legend held meth in low esteem; they thought even less of unarmed bureaucrats. The funding flowed accordingly. John Buckley, a retired diversion investigator, recalled watching an old-timer at DEA headquarters weighing the promotion of an agent who had made a career busting amphetamine dealers. "If it ain't heroin," Buckley recalled the reviewer saying, "he ain't getting the grade."

Gene Haislip, head of the DEA's Office of Diversion Control from 1980 to 1997, said he once phoned Florida agents about a 1-ton load of ephedrine powder headed to California by truck.

"You're sending us out to check on some (expletive) powder, when we're up to our ears in cocaine?" Haislip recalled the Florida agents saying. "We don't have time to do that." The load was found only because a New Mexico state trooper happened to stop the truck on a traffic violation.

"They were working heroin, cocaine traffickers, the mob, organized crime, big cases," said Portland agent Debora Podkowa, describing her early contacts with other DEA offices concerning East Coast chemical suppliers. "They looked at what we did in the West as 'kiddie dope.' "

So deeply were these attitudes ingrained, when lawmakers offered money for 100 new chemical investigators and agents in 1989, the Justice Department declined, according to congressional records. Haislip's office warned in 1992 that short staffing would allow for only "minimum fulfillment" of the DEA's responsibility to control the chemical trade. The agency now spends about $20 million a year -- about 1 percent of its $1.7 billion budget -- to monitor all manufacturers, importers and suppliers of drug precursor chemicals. It deploys the equivalent of 100 people to license and monitor 3,000 companies. By comparison, the agency fields more than 4,500 special agents to catch drug dealers.

Internal and external management critiques repeatedly flagged the agency's ambivalence toward chemical control and the role of diversion investigators over three decades. By the late 1990s, the agency was fighting lawsuits from 250 current and former diversion investigators.

The investigators alleged their bosses routinely called on them to do the same criminal work as special agents, without the benefits or pay. "The special agents always get the cars and best equipment," said John Coleman, a retired DEA chief of operations and former head of the agency's Boston and Newark, N.J., field divisions. Diversion investigators "are the 9-to-5 crew. They get what's left over."

continued....

There's a terrorist behind every Bush.

Jade
(soccer mom)
11-05-04 11:16
No 539839
User Picture       part 2

"Swimming with sharks"

While diversion investigators fought internal battles over their proper place within the DEA, the agency faced pressure from the outside to rein them in. A trade group alleged harassment when a member was subpoenaed for refusing to answer parts of a 34-question DEA application. A mail-order business said the DEA was intruding on its customers' privacy by demanding their names and addresses. The U.S. Small Business Administration warned the DEA that the registration process "could have a tremendous impact" on an important segment of the economy.

Congress proposed in July 1998 to reduce the penalty for failing to report or keep proper records to $500 from $25,000. The Clinton administration assured lawmakers there was no need: The DEA did not plan to punish chemical registrants. Mary Lee Warren, deputy assistant attorney general, testified that most chemical diversion investigations resulted in "at most, a letter of admonition."

DEA officials were aware of the concerns. From the beginning, they had pushed back the deadline for registering and allowed companies to sell pseudoephedrine while the DEA reviewed their applications. Later, they lowered the registration fee to $116 from a proposed $595. Headquarters officials asked field offices to report monthly how many companies were processed.

In the field, investigators recognized that rejecting a company could create huge delays. Applicants could contest rejections before one of the agency's three administrative law judges, who also heard appeals filed by the nation's 1 million registered doctors and retail pharmacies. Hearings took six months to schedule, and a final decision could take two years.

Diversion investigators experienced in regulating prescription drug sales found themselves confronting an entirely different clientele. "Now, all of a sudden, we've got some guy operating out of his garage," recalled Detroit investigator Jim Geldhof. "He says, 'I'm handling pseudoephedrine, and I'm going to sell to these gas stations.' "In a way," Geldhof said, "we were kind of swimming with the sharks with these guys."

Meanwhile, staffing was limited. Agency officials ultimately decided to devote only six hours to investigate each applicant, after initially estimating 14 hours was needed. For follow-ups, the agency could spare the equivalent of six people to audit the nation's 3,000 DEA-registered distributors of drug chemicals.

"With the volume we were receiving, just a flood of applications in '97, the perceived pressure was on to get them over, get them done," said Marsha R. Jones, a DEA diversion program manager working in Detroit at the time.

Learning experiences

Operation Mountain Express, the investigation that began with a tip from FedEx, ended in July 2000 with the arrest of 140 people accused of supplying pseudoephedrine to Mexican drug cartels operating in California. Days later, Attorney General Janet Reno held a news conference to tout it as a DEA success story. "This operation should send a message," Reno said. ". . . Whether you are a dealer, a manufacturer, or one who makes it all possible by providing the chemical ingredients, you will be held accountable."

Tandy, then a top narcotics attorney under Reno, was livid. She noted that the DEA itself had licensed many of the people charged with supplying pseudoephedrine to meth traffickers. According to people familiar with the case, Tandy posed a steely question to DEA officials afterward. How, Tandy asked, could you let this happen? Today, Tandy runs the DEA. President Bush chose her in 2003 to be the first woman to lead the agency, part of the Justice Department.

DEA officials, federal prosecutors and state regulators say Mountain Express made the agency more skeptical of people seeking to sell pseudoephedrine. Frank Sapienza, a retired DEA chemicals official, said the agency's approach toward applicants used to be "looking at the glass as half full, instead of half empty." Now companies must show a good reason for selling the product, said Geldhof, the Detroit investigator.

"We really are looking now to say, 'Unless there's a really good basis for it, we're going to deny this thing,' " he said. The agency said it is doing a better job tracking the sales of the nation's 3,000 registered chemical distributors. From 2001 to 2003, the DEA conducted what it called "periodic investigations" of more than 1,300 of those companies. On average, that meant each company stood a one-in-seven chance of being visited by an inspector each year. The DEA said it has moved to revoke or deny licenses to 143 companies. After the Mountain Express case, pseudoephedrine brokers in the United States began looking for a new, unregulated source of pills. Canada required no license to sell pseudoephedrine. U.S. brokers began hauling pseudoephedrine by the truckload from Quebec to Detroit to Los Angeles. From 1997 to 2001, Canada's legal imports of pseudoephedrine quadrupled to about 140 metric tons. Under U.S. pressure, Canada responded in 2003 with a DEA-style licensing system for pseudoephedrine dealers.

The haven provided by Canada demonstrated that control over the chemicals needed for meth required more than U.S. regulation. It would also take help from the handful of nations where pseudoephedrine is made.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1096718740270530.xml

There's a terrorist behind every Bush.

jackhole
(Hive Bee)
11-05-04 19:52
No 539878
      Old news

That is old news; laws are tighter now, and pseudoephedrine will continue to be available for the people who actually NEED it. Instead of getting it off the shelf though, they'll just have to ask the pharmacist.

Jizzy Jizzy Bang Bang

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
11-05-04 21:12
No 539891
User Picture       Nobody needs pseudoephedrine.

Nobody needs pseudoephedrine. It's actually one of the shittiest medications around. In some countries it's not even available, and somehow people survive. There are many cheap and better alternatives.

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

Saddam_Hussein
(Hive Bee)
11-05-04 21:17
No 539892
User Picture       psuedoephedrine

Nobody needs pseudoephedrine. It's actually one of the shittiest medications around. In some countries it's not even available, and somehow people survive. There are many cheap and better alternatives.

You forget the meth cook industry.

It's safer for them to allow cooks playing around with pills rather than allowing them to do chemistry.

President of the Iraqi Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction Development Society

psychokitty
(«»)
11-05-04 21:42
No 539899
      Shhhh!!!

Nobody needs pseudoephedrine. It's actually one of the shittiest medications around. In some countries it's not even available, and somehow people survive. There are many cheap and better alternatives.

True or not, are you trying to sink-hole some of us with a statement like that? shocked

You must really be rallying for a minimized meth forum population. laugh

And btw, what other OTC medication is out there that can both relieve nasal congestion and keep you moderately awake?

Scottydog
(Hive Addict)
11-06-04 00:33
No 539934
User Picture       Pill Armageddon

I've been hearing this same shit for the last 5 years! I'm sure that this sensationalism has existed for even longer.

I'm beginning to think that everytime they "propose" new legislation it helps the pharm industry to unload a surplus of pills that they are trying to move "a little faster" because it induces an athmosphere of panic in the underground. It gives an impression of "now or never" a fear that stimulates commerce. crazy

Then again, like Geez says, it won't hurt to diversify in and of the event that they finally decide to stop crying wolf and place health and welfare before profit. Which we all know this puzzle piece doesn't quite jive with the government/pharm industry's greedy agenda.

Refuse/Resist

jackhole
(Hive Bee)
11-06-04 07:56
No 540000
      Theory doesn't equal reality

On paper, what you guys say is obviously more accurate and practical, but it ends there. Obviously nobody technically NEEDS pseudoephedrine, as nasal decongestance is not fatal.

You guys can say what you want, but pseudoephedrine-containing products will continue to be available for purchase for at least decades to come. As a whole, it is currently the best drug out there for treating nasal decongestance. Pay attention to "as a whole". Sure, other drugs may be more effective or cheaper, but you guys really have to consider the COMBINATION of factors that influences its presence in the market. You guys instead are all focusing on a sole factor, which makes no sense. It's not how decisions are made, and if it were, pseudoephedrine wouldn't be available today.

Jizzy Jizzy Bang Bang

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
11-06-04 08:21
No 540002
User Picture       > You guys can say what you want, but ...

> You guys can say what you want, but pseudoephedrine-containing products will
> continue to be available for purchase for at least decades to come.

No they won't.

> As a whole, it is currently the best drug out there for treating nasal
> decongestance. Pay attention to "as a whole".

Define "as a whole".

> Sure, other drugs may be more effective or cheaper, but you guys really have
> to consider the COMBINATION of factors that influences its presence in the
> market.

And what is this combination of factors?
WHat about countries where it has 0% market presence? What's the combination of factors in that case?
You guys instead are all focusing on a sole factor, which makes no sense. It's not how decisions are made, and if it were, pseudoephedrine wouldn't be available today.

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

jackhole
(Hive Bee)
11-06-04 08:31
No 540003
      Factors

The factors are the same as what keeps any recognized product on store shelves (or in this case, behind the counter). And products with pseudoephrine are just not going to go away just because it can be used to make meth.

I guess we have disagreements on this subject, so we will just have to wait and see... kind of like the outcome of the U.S. presidential election =)

But history shows that the logic is this: if the product is in demand for a practical cause, it will be supplied. Don't argue the P2P case with this either - hundreds of products could replace P2P effortlessly (yeah yeah, except in meth manufacturing). Not the case with pseudoephedrine. There are drugs that are effective as nasal decongestants, but none are anywhere near as recognized as pseudoephedrine-containing products. If the drug itself is dangerous, it is another story. The drug itself is not dangerous. An ignorant meth cook and his lab and end product are, but because that is not directly attributed to pseudoephedrine itself, I cannot believe that it will be removed from the market anytime soon.

Jizzy Jizzy Bang Bang

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
11-06-04 09:06
No 540008
User Picture       > products with pseudoephrine are just not...

> products with pseudoephrine are just not going to go away just because it can be
> used to make meth.

Oh I see. Just like ephedrine. Is that what you are saying?

> There are drugs that are effective as nasal decongestants, but none are anywhere
> near as recognized as pseudoephedrine-containing products.

In other words, you cannot come up with any brand names for decongestants without pseudo so pseudo must remain here to stay. I want pseudo to be available so it will stay available. Wishful thinking.

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

jackhole
(Hive Bee)
11-06-04 09:50
No 540014
      Different reasons

Ephedrine (and PPA) were both "banned" (though ephedrine is still easily and legally available for those resourceful enough) because of the health risks they posed. I stand by what I said that unless pseudoephedrine itself is discovered to be hazardous to one's health, it will remain legal and available for purchase.

And I don't believe I'm exercising any wishful thinking. Please point out where I am. I personally don't care about the meth war in any capacity; there's no reason for me to have wishful thinking concerning this matter.

Jizzy Jizzy Bang Bang

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
11-06-04 12:07
No 540023
User Picture       > Ephedrine (and PPA) were both ...

> Ephedrine (and PPA) were both "banned" (though ephedrine is still easily and
> legally available for those resourceful enough) because of the health risks they
> posed.

And if you believe that this was the only reason for their ban then I have a bridge to sell to you.

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

jackhole
(Hive Bee)
11-06-04 19:58
No 540052
      Look bozo

Look bozo,

You still aren't getting it. I am 99.99999% confident I am correct by my statement that pseudoephedrine-cointaining products will continue to be available for decades to come. And l-pseudoephedrine is still pseudoephedrine. But all you guys are thinking about is its dextrorotary isomer. Probably because your guys' only intent with the product is to make meth out of it.

(And if you want to get unrealistically technical, Osmium, I'm referring to d-meth.)

Jizzy Jizzy Bang Bang

jackhole
(Hive Bee)
11-06-04 23:23
No 540079
      D-Meth sucks anyway

On a somewhat related note, d-meth sucks anyway, so maybe it would be a blessing for it to go away. Pave way for the d,l-meth to make a comback if there is indeed a Meth God. cool

Jizzy Jizzy Bang Bang

Astrum
(Stranger)
11-08-04 04:31
No 540343
      New methods

I don't think we should be arguing whether or not pseudoephedrine will vanish or not. It might stay around forever or it might disappear by 2006. In either case new methods need to be developed. There are a number of promising ones out there that could potentially replace the methods that utilize pseudoephedrine.

Paticularly styrene to P2P, hexamine to methylamine, and P2P, methylamine, and aluminum amalgam to racemic methamphetamine. Of course the styrene to P2P method is still being developed (paticularly getting from PAA to P2P cheaply and easily), but it still shows promise. Although this would be more work than the RP/I/pseudoephedrine method, the precursors are much easier to get.

If they're focusing purely on pseudoephedrine then the door is wide open for an alternative method. Adapt or die, it's that simple. Just my opinion though.

-Jaych

jackhole
(Hive Bee)
11-08-04 20:22
No 540469
      I agree, how about HTA -> P2P

How about hydratropic aldehyde rearrangement to P2P? It's suspicionless (as of this reply), affordable, and the rearrangement only requires chilled sulfuric acid followed by some bicarb and brine washes, and finally vac. distillation of P2P in 60% yield. That alone is easier than trying to extract pseudoephedrine from today's pills if you ask me.

Jizzy Jizzy Bang Bang

Saddam_Hussein
(Hive Bee)
11-08-04 20:44
No 540472
User Picture       Jesusland

How about hydratropic aldehyde rearrangement to P2P? It's suspicionless (as of this reply), affordable, and the rearrangement only requires chilled sulfuric acid followed by some bicarb and brine washes, and finally vac. distillation of P2P in 60% yield. That alone is easier than trying to extract pseudoephedrine from today's pills of you ask me.

For a reason only God knows, they prefer extracting psuedoephedrine from pills, even if there are 999 other, better, and less suspicious synthetic routes towards methamphetamine. For me, that is the Big Mystery of the Stimulants Forum: why on earth do they stick to the same old methods when there are better alternatives, and also, how the hell are they able to fabricate so many questions on the same topic.

I think the DEA must have a "Meth Lab Notebooks: the Best of" circulating in their offices tongue

President of the Iraqi Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction Development Society

Stan_desCline
(Stranger)
11-08-04 21:38
No 540483
      Banned?

To my knowledge, ephedrine was never banned in the U.S.. Only the tablets containing exclusively ephedrine. The E/Guaifenisin mixtures have been around eversince the "ban" took place in 1994. Yes, the ephedra hebal extract was banned, but I am unsure about the actual raw herb itself. I was in a Chinese market just the other day and saw a jar on the shelf next to the other herbs labeled "Ephedra". Does anyone know if the ephedra ban extends to the raw herb or are the local Chinese just English impaired? SWIM purcased 2 ounces for his "asthma" along with instructions on how to prepare "tea" from the Chinese "doctor" and swears it is the genuine herb post-bioassay.

I suffer from reverse paranoia. I think everyone is out to help me.

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
11-08-04 21:52
No 540488
      well, yes and no

Ephedrine is a precursor substance. You have to have a license to possess or sell it. One exception to the rule is if the E is in medicines approved for OTC sales by the FDA. The 25mg ephedrine/ 200 mg guffy pills have FDA approval for OTC sales.

mostly harmless

Artex
(Bacon)
11-08-04 22:34
No 540496
      Ephedrine

My understanding of the Ephedrine restrictions is that they arose out of concern for the weight loss industry's use. People like Corey Stringer, Lineman for the Minnesota Vikings were using this product to increase their metabolism during exercise and overheating to the point of killing themselves.

Once a few highschool kids died, the government freaked and restricted all products containing ephedrine. That's why Xenadrine and other weight loss products such as Hydroxycut are now ephedrine and ephedra free.

As far as the restrictions go, I believe the 'war on meth' is mostly targetted at the mom and pop shops. With every Tom, Dick, and Harry able to cook, they're calling it an epidemic.

Have you guys heard of the pink stuff they're developing for Anhydrous Ammonia? Allegedly it won't affect crops at all, but it will make your meth come out bright pink and stain the user's nostrils and lips. Do you think this stuff will have any affect on the casual meth user?

jsorex
(Hive Addict)
11-09-04 21:30
No 540700
      Why would pseudoephedrine need to be banned?

Why would pseudoephedrine need to be banned? Wouldn't putting it behind the counter, in more complex dosage forms and smaller packages (ne rep. ne iter. prescriptions) take out a big portion of the home labs?

Obviously the the people tha have developed a pfed product and are vending it are going to protest any changes even though it is not a important medicine etc.

Perhaps it would even be easier to chase a few big manufactures, than thousands of home cooks.

Artex
(Bacon)
11-09-04 22:20
No 540708
      Not banned

I don't think it will be banned at all. I believe the Oklahoma approach will become the national standard. I expect a quantity purchase limitation on all products containing pseudoephedrine with an identification check as a method of soft enforcement.

The next legislative session in Texas will be addressing the Oklahoma approach and probably will pass a similar law. The idea isn't to eliminate meth production at all; you guys are too clever to stop it entirely. The idea is to dramatically restrict access to the chemicals that make it very easy to synthesize, thereby reducing the widespread home cooks which lead to accidents and severe health risks.

We can't stop everyone, but we can reduce the casual use which is spreading like a contagion across the poorer population, ruining the lives of addicts who are completely unable to function. We've got mom and pop outfits who destroy who families cooking in their garage, exposing their children to toxic fumes, and often causing explosions.

I believe the aim is harm reduction.

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
11-10-04 12:15
No 540808
User Picture       Dude, as soon as the meth fiends figure out...

Dude, as soon as the meth fiends figure out how easy and cheap meth can be made from toluene or styrene in multi-100g amounts you prohibition dimwits will wish you never outlawed I2 and rP and made pseudo hard to get, while your daughter is turning tricks and sucking cock in cracktown to get money for the real bad drugs since you people mindlessly threw meth and MDMA in the same legal bucket as H and crack. You cannot win this war, and your loved ones will end up paying for your stupidity. Which is sad and tragic, but cannot be helped.

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

Jade
(soccer mom)
11-10-04 12:22
No 540811
User Picture       Os is right!

You can blame yourselves (LE and the laws they enforce) for the meth problem. If you'll look back you will see that it all began when the pills were regulated by the government. Meth was around but it was never an issue as it is now. Are you guys really that dumb?

There's a terrorist behind every Bush.

Unobtainium
(Minister of Propaganda)
11-10-04 12:49
No 540816
User Picture       That's not the reason.

The WOD needs a public enemy number one to survive. First it was pot, then during the 60s it was acid. In the 70s it was heroin, the 80s cocaine, the 90s crack, and now meth. The DEA, always one to follow a trend, are just picking up on whatever drug is making headlines so they can raise more money for themselves.

You hardly ever hear of a huge coke or heroin bust anymore. Did the DEA stamp our coke and heroin? Fuck no. It just isn't as profitable to fight anymore, and meth is. In 10 years there won't be any less meth on the streets or any fewer meth users, but the DEA will move onto the next evil drug that makes it to the evening news and not give a shit about meth anymore.

They can't ever win and they know it. If they don't keep changing the main drug to combat every decade, people might finally figure out the DEA is completely ineffective. They never claim victory over the previous drug, they just present a new drug as the new primary threat and hope people forget about their previous 10 years of total failure.

Milk rots your brain.

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
11-10-04 17:12
No 540848
      shifting emphasis

Interesting comment, Unob. Meth lab busts are down substantially in my state due to pseudo being scheduled. The latest news rag propaganda concerns the "growing" MDMA threat to our children.

In the last dozen years, there hadn't been five busts for MDMA in the entire judicial district I live in. I've seen about ten so far this year. The new "boogie man" has arrived locally, just as the methamphetamine-related property forfeitures have fallen so low that Law Enforcement budgets are constricting and "Drug Task Forces" are being disbanded. The paper is hyping the MDMA "monster" as the new killer drug about to steal our children and deprive them of their virtue.

Its about time.

mostly harmless

LoW_JacK
(Hive Martyr)
11-10-04 17:53
No 540863
User Picture       Re: STOCK UP MY FELLOW BEES, STOCK UP!!!!!

STOCK UP MY FELLOW BEES, STOCK UP!!!!!   and in the meantime, remember, the bees will allways make the honey EDIT oh yeah, if you still can, vote kerry!!!!!

Why? So the fucking goon can reinstate the assault weapons ban and take it even further than clinton did? No thanks, I like my semi-auto shotgun and would be aiming it at you if you were to've spread that kerry propoganda any further.

Just what do you think kerrys would do about the meth problem if he would have had a fair count from the electoral college?
I say fuck'em both. At least I know that Bush jr is a crooked fuck. Kerry had that used-car salesman look to him.
So what if Bush pissed off the saudi's into sending a Sosa-style(scarface) hit-squad over here to take down the WTC towers that they basically owned a large chunk of.
Well actually, i do care. It's just that the saudi's or taliban or al-qu??? hasnt any investments that Bush has fucked them over on out here on the west coast.
And believe it, sept.11 was not a terrorist attack. It was more like, "We gave you how much money?"

well theres a stand-off view of that bullshit anyhow.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3818abff3380.htm

Unobtainium
(Minister of Propaganda)
11-10-04 17:55
No 540866
User Picture       Club drugs are definately going to be the next

Club drugs are definately going to be the next public enemy number one. I don't quite understand why they aren't riding out meth for another 5 years like they did all the other drugs though.

I assume it probably has something to do similar to LSD in the 60s. The current administration does not want young people openning their minds with psychedellics in the midst of a war.

The term "club drugs" was practically coined the day Bush took office for the first time. Ecstacy and GHB were never commonly referred to as club drugs in the media prior to 2000.

Milk rots your brain.