Santa Monica is seeing the effects of pot decriminalization - no more arrests for pot use in homes

[Liberal_in_LA]

Three years after Measure Y, Santa Monica is seeing the effects of pot decriminalization

An in-depth review of police data by the Santa Monica Daily Press has revealed that Measure Y -- which made adult marijuana offenses on private property the lowest priority of the Santa Monica Police Department -- is having a big effect on drug enforcement.

According to the study, in the two years since measure Y took effect, Santa Monica has not issued a single citation for offenses involving the personal use of marijuana in private residences.

Supporters of marijuana decriminalization are hailing the findings as proof that Santa Monica is moving in the right direction with its marijuana policy.

"There's no harm done by individuals smoking marijuana in the privacy of their homes," said Bill Zimmerman, president of the political consulting firm Zimmerman and Markman and campaign manager for Proposition 215. "Why would we waste our police resources on an offense that 10 million Americans — including our three most recent presidents — have admitted engaging in?"

The Santa Monica police, on the other hand, claim that marijuana-related calls were already a low priority and argue that the measure is hampering the department's ability to enforce the law.

"It imposes administrative rules for something that isn't really there," said Sgt. Jay Trisler. "It just took one component of enforcement — inside residences — and delayed it due to prioritization of calls."

"Previously, we could respond in time to get there while someone was still smoking," Trisler added. "Now, we can't usually respond while the crime is still occurring, and that's resulting in possibly not finding larger crimes."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2009/08/two-years-after-measure-y-santa-monica-is-seeing-the-effects-of-pot-decriminalization.html

[Mythsaje]

1. But let's remember that cops don't really support the drug war...

Sgt. Trisler? Please go fuck yourself. With a taser, preferably.

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. weird how cops are so eager to go rummaging thru cars / homes / pockets looking for crimes

weird weird weird

[Mythsaje]

3. Well, there just aren't enough crimes happening where people can see them...

Prisons don't just fill themselves, you know.

[old mark]

6. I guess the cops there are being paid by

piece rate.....

Gotta make that quota!!!


mark

[slampoet]

19. In Rhode Island they ARE. Police and others freely admit they get kickbacks for every car they tow.

It's a well know "secret".

[paulsby]

14. weird how legislators are so eager

to make STUPID laws that means that finding a piece of mj = "a crime"

criminalizing mj is stupid, and it aint the fault of da cops.

it's the fault of the legislature. they can rescind these laws.

so can the citizenry - via initiative in many states.

only federal legislators can change the federal C1 status (scheduled C one) of mj.

blame them. i do .

[old mark]

25. You are right. The legislators make ridiculous laws and the cops

must enforce them.

mark

[Greyhound]

41. Well, a stoned resident of Santa Monica is not very likely to shoot at them,

so of course they were a favorite target.

Now they have to hide out until a call comes in to beat up on little old homeless ladies "armed" with screwdrivers and harsh language.

[TexasObserver]

4. Recommend

[paulsby]

5. good, but not unusual

even in jurisdictions where pot is still technically illegal (like my state of WA, where we do have a medical MJ law, but it's otherwise illegal), there are a lot of cops who are not going to prosecute somebody for minor possession, especially in one's own home.

i have seen cops, on many occasions, when they catch a guy in the car with a joint, or a couple of buds, just dispose of it on scene, with a warning.

the same is often true during incidents within the home. cops who respond to a DV and see (god forbid!) a pipe with some mj residue on it, are not (if parties are cooperative) often going to charge it, but will just issue a warning.

people would be surprised how many cops (i know MANY) think mj should be decrim.

MJ laws are the FAULT OF THE LEGISLATORS. good on those jurisdictions that are working towards decrim, or making it a low priority.

also, anybody who studies (or deals with directly) crime, KNOWS that mj does not incline people towards violence, iow usually quite the opposite. meth, alcohol, even excess caffeine, can make people aggressive or even violent. pot makes them laff at dumb jokes and want to eat cheezy poofs!. iow, WHO CARES?

[Mythsaje]

7. I know Seattle has a "lowest priority" thing going

passed by the voters a few years ago. They had signature gatherers at Bumbershoot one year when I went.

Sounds like the cops in this story are arguing against it, even though it really is the most rational stance they can take. I'm sure former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper would agree. It's too bad they want to waste their time pursuing victimless crimes in the hopes of stumbling upon a real one.

[paulsby]

9. please don't get me started on stamper who

is a cop-o-crat moron.

kerlikowske fwiw, a former seattle police chief and a member of obama's team has already come out with NUMEROUS statements confirming that he is against legalization or decrim of any sort. he's actually spoken quite strongly.

but again, you blame the wrong persons. it;s not the cops fault. it's the LEGISLATORS fault. THEY criminalize MJ. they refuse to decrim it. so, if anybody is to be blamed for "wasting time" pursuing victimless crime, it's the legislators who MAKE victimless crimes into crimes by passing dumb nannystate laws.

[Mythsaje]

11. Their mentality is their own... can't blame THAT on legislators.

Can blame it on the whole militant "brotherhood" shit, though. And I do.

[paulsby]

12. utter rubbish

go back to high school and take a govt. class.

cops don't make law. LEGISLATORS (and citizens through initiative do).

nearly all the dem and repub candidates alike (this is not a partisan issue) came across against mj decrim/legalization. iirc, kucinich and ron paul were for it.

you can wank all you want about a militant brotherhood, but rule of law is rule of law.

i know TONS of cops who want to see it decrim'd or legalized. it's not OUR fault

the fault rests with those who make the bad policy, not those who are forced to enforce it.

[Mythsaje]

28. Is it ethical to enforce a law one does not believe in, especially when one

knows that lives might be destroyed and families torn apart because of a decision made by the police officer on the scene with the potential power to change those lives forever? Law and justice are two very different things, and if in serving law one also serves injustice, is that ethically and morally right?

Let's say you catch one of your buddies or their wife doing something illegal but not particularly dangerous. (Say skinny-dipping in the middle of the night on a secluded beach). Do you make a judgment call and pretend you didn't see it, thus sparing them the possibility of public humiliation and permanent stigma as sex offenders, or do you obey the law and destroy their lives?

Or say you respond to a call at an apartment building and, while dealing with one situation, you catch a whiff of marijuana emanating from a nearby apartment. Upon investigating, you find a middle age couple who are apparently sitting in their own home, watching television, and indulging in a generally benign intoxicant that happens to be illegal? Say they didn't hide their bong well enough and you can see it from where you stand at the door, thus giving you even more probable cause than just the smell.

The law says that you should at least arrest them for possession. Do you? Or do you attempt to confiscate their stash to "teach them a lesson?" (The lesson being you can't be robbed by a cop, despite all evidence to the contrary). And, yes, this happens. I've seen it. There were a couple of cops in Auburn many years ago who were notorious for that sort of thing.

It says a lot about you that you are a DUer, Paulsby, and that you're willing to discuss these things as openly as you do. But I have to ask you to realize the big picture here, and understand that one can follow the intent of the law with the best of intentions and still find oneself on the short end of an ethical dilemma. At what point does humanity trump legality?

You know as well as I do that you make judgment calls all the time that have nothing to do with the law. To let someone go with a warning you might have had dead to rights for a traffic infraction. To ignore the jaywalker because you really don't want to do the paperwork on a stupid ticket like that. That sort of thing. You can't honestly claim that you're "just doing your job." It's more than that, and if you were being honest, you'd admit it.

I realize we'll probably never agree on what the appropriate use of force is, and where the line should be drawn between reasonable application and brutality. As long as you never pull me over and taser me for rolling my eyes at you, I suppose we can agree to disagree on the point. I'll continue to criticize cops for tolerating bullies and sadists within their ranks and you'll continue to believe that you don't tolerate them.

I'll never forget being threatened with a K-9 for having the nerve to walk home from work along a main drag wearing a dark, heavy jacket in the middle of winter, told that "if I ever catch you out here dressed like that again, I'll sick my dog on you." I was doing nothing wrong and that incident itself turned a natural wariness into an active dislike of bully cops. I was powerless to do anything about it and that sucked. And, if I'm not mistaken, that's assault. Or, at least, it would be assault if a civilian did it.

I know you want to assume I just hate cops indiscriminately, but that's not the case. I just hate asshole cops. And I wish people like you hated them as much as I do. You have the power to destroy lives without even blinking and have to realize that that power comes at a price. Power without the moderating factor of social obligation is a dangerous thing. And since we citizens have only a limited ability to provide oversight, it falls upon the good cops to do so. When you don't, society as a whole suffers and respect for law and law enforcement takes a hit.

That cop who threatened me had a partner. A human partner who did nothing while he threatened me. Though he himself didn't engage in that behavior, he also didn't do anything about it. Which makes him, in my eyes, no less guilty than the other cop. That's the way it works with criminals, isn't it? If you're there, you're equally guilty. Right?

[paulsby]

36. i believe it's ethical

let me put if this way, if it was NOT ethical, than no police officer could be ethical. there is no way any sentient being could agree with every law.

we have some discretion, with many misdemeanors, to issue warnings, etc.

"Let's say you catch one of your buddies or their wife doing something illegal but not particularly dangerous. (Say skinny-dipping in the middle of the night on a secluded beach). Do you make a judgment call and pretend you didn't see it, thus sparing them the possibility of public humiliation and permanent stigma as sex offenders, or do you obey the law and destroy their lives?"

that's a poor example, because if they were doing it on a secluded beach in the middle of the night, it would not even be a crime.

and if they did it in a manner that was a crime, it would only be a piddly misdemeanor. iow, unless i had a specific victim complaining about it and wanting to press charges, i could issue a warning.

"Or say you respond to a call at an apartment building and, while dealing with one situation, you catch a whiff of marijuana emanating from a nearby apartment. Upon investigating, you find a middle age couple who are apparently sitting in their own home, watching television, and indulging in a generally benign intoxicant that happens to be illegal? Say they didn't hide their bong well enough and you can see it from where you stand at the door, thus giving you even more probable cause than just the smell."

again, this is a piddly misdemeanor. my police chief from my former agency once told me he didn't give a flying fuck whether people smoked MJ in the privacy of their homes.

but again,in this case, i would not be violating either dept. policy or the law, if i simply gave them a warning.

again, we have discretion with misdemeanors like this (at least in my agency)

"The law says that you should at least arrest them for possession. Do you? Or do you attempt to confiscate their stash to "teach them a lesson?" (The lesson being you can't be robbed by a cop, despite all evidence to the contrary). And, yes, this happens. I've seen it. There were a couple of cops in Auburn many years ago who were notorious for that sort of thing."

the law does NOT say this.

"realize we'll probably never agree on what the appropriate use of force is, and where the line should be drawn between reasonable application and brutality. As long as you never pull me over and taser me for rolling my eyes at you, I suppose we can agree to disagree on the point. I'll continue to criticize cops for tolerating bullies and sadists within their ranks and you'll continue to believe that you don't tolerate them."

do some cops tolerate bullies? sure. are some cops bullies? sure. do *i* tolerate them? no . never have,never will.

if a cop tasered you for rolling your eyes at him, i 'd be the first in line to make a complaint against that officer.

"That's the way it works with criminals, isn't it? If you're there, you're equally guilty. Right?"

that's a gross simplification, but in brief, no.

mere presence at a crime is not a crime. heck, you could stand by and watch some guy stab some guy. see the guy bleeding on the sidewalk, decline to use your cell phone to call 911, and just stand there watching him die. no crime there.

that's the law.

if you are an ACCOMPLICE to a crime, that's a crime.

the point is this - imo, the war on drugs, the war on domestic violence and to a lesser extent, the war on terrorism (doesn't affect us much on the local level) have all resulted in laws that i think are unethical, bad policy, etc.

that's life.

NO cop is going to agree with every law. have i arrested people (in mandatory arrest situations) that i strongly believed it was injust to arrest? of course. in those cases, the law demanded it. if i hadn't, *i* would have been subject to massive civil liability and termination.

the point is that we have a rule of law. we accept that the democratic process and the social compact means that we are tasked with (sometimes) enforcing bad law.

i have been very critical for instance, of the extent to which english cops in particular are allowed to decline certain assigments because they disagree with policy. there have been cases, for instance, of cops refusing to do certain embassy duties (guarding same) etc. because they disagree with that country's policies. that's horseshit. my dept. certainly wouldn't allow that.

cops have a lot of discretion, but we are still executive branch.

the fault for bad law rests with the legislators, and to some extent, the populace (in states where citizen initiative allows them ot change bad law).

i strongly disagree for instance, with the 21 yr old drinking age. i think that's dumb policy. can i give warnings for liquor offenses committed by minors? yes. do i? on ,many occasions yes. another cop in the exact same situation might have a "cite everybody" policy.

c'est la vie

my experiences with cops, even as a long haired minority shady lookin' surfer dude (when i was younger) have been almost always positive. but i was also always respectful (except for one occasion, and that was the only negative experience i ever had with a cop... well negative as far as their behavior. nobody LIKES getting a ticket), obeyed their commands, and didn't act like a fucking putz. that goes a long way.

[Mythsaje]

37. Being naked in a public place is a crime, whether or not someone is on hand to observe it

(someone beside the theoretical cop, that is). Just the possibility someone might see them makes it not only a crime, but a crime with sexual connotations. People have ended up on the sexual predator list for nothing more. And, yes, lives have been destroyed.

You have a certain amount of flexibility, a flexibility which a good cop uses to prevent doing harm, or to prevent harm from occurring due to their involvement. And while a bad cop might deliberately escalate a situation in order to satisfy a need to flex one's muscles, or exercise one's power, a good cop would avoid doing so because the negatives would outweigh the positives.

You might well be the kind of officer who'd step out of the crowd to report on a colleague who crossed the line. But let's be honest here. It's not as though that really happens very often. Pretty much every time we've seen something submitted by citizens that suggests such a line has been crossed, the police close up ranks and no one steps forward.

[paulsby]

42. this is why i find discussing law with laymen who don't understand it - tiring

what you are saying is simply false. you do realize that the law VARIES based on jurisdiction. in NY state, for example, it's perfectly legal for women to walk around in public topless. doesn't matter who is offended.

in oregon, it's legal to walk around buck naked (top and bottom) (or so i am told. i am not an expert on oregon law. i may be wrong on this, but see below)

*********the law in WA state is EXACTLY how i stated it (since you were giving me hypotheticals and i work in this jurisdiction).

here is the RCW that would apply to skinny dipping example. RCW is the LAW.

you are astoundingly wrong. not surprising for a layman discussing thelaw. what remains to be seen is if you will have the intellectual honesty to admit your error.

RCW9a.88.010
1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not indecent exposure.

so two people at night on a deserted beach skinny dipping are NOT **intentionally making an open and obscene exposure of their person KNOWING the such conduct is LIKELY to casue reasonable affront or alarm.

period.

if i skinny dip at a deserted beach at night (YOUR SCENARIO) i most definitely did NOT meet each element of this crime.

and any cop that arrested me 1) is a moron 2) would see his case nolle pros'd by the prosecutor 3) and if he was my trainee, would get a tongue lashing

i am not going to get into all the nuances, so i'll give you one reason why it's not a crime.

assuming the beach is deserted, and it's night, such conduct is NOT ******likely**** to cause reasonable affront or alarm

if you did it in broad daylight on a crowded kirkland beach, it WOULD

there's your lesson in the law.

i will await your response to see if you have the intelletual honesty to admit you are wrong

[paulsby]

43. crickets...

chirp chirp...

[Swamp Rat]

8. Every police officer I know or met does not want to be bothered with marijuana users and usage.

I prefer they concentrate on stopping drunk drivers, pedophiles, and violent criminals.

[paulsby]

13. exactly. and yet time and time again, in DU and elsewhere

mj decrim proponents BLAME the cops for the war on drugs.

horseshit!

i'm a cop and im against it. so are many cops (at least when it comes to MJ).

and that, and 50 cents will buy you a candy bar.

the LEGISLATORS and the CITIZENS have the power to change these dumb laws.

blame them, not us.

thanks for making this point

[Swamp Rat]

15. Crystal meth and crack, however,

should be treated as poisons, and their distribution as attempted murder.

[paulsby]

16. wow

i'm not that "law and order".

i think that even if we decrim/legalize POSSESSION, i can see an argument for criminalizing distribution of them. although i think attempted murder comparisons are a bit much. but more power to you

crack, fwiw, is not NEARLY as bad as meth. all the 80's hype aside, crack itself isn't a particularly bad drug. it's bad, but meth is worse ime. and my experience includes thousands of hours hanging out with dealers and users while working undercover (for years).

meth is arguably as insidious as they SAID crack was.

i realize that forced sterilization is illegal, but if we could force sterilize hardcore meth addicts and give them the option of retreat to an 'escape from new york' type isolated island where they could smoke all the meth they wanted, without the ability to ruin OTHER people's lives, i'd find that preferable to the current system.

[Swamp Rat]

18. And I don't even watch "Law and Order"

:D (which ain't nothin' like real life)

I agree there is a difference between crack and meth, but I have seen crack destroy many young people.

Meth, as you said, is very insidious, probably the worst yet.... I'm sure another, worse drug will be invented. The beckoning black market of drug consumption will likely inspire a few insane bastards to create something else.

[paulsby]

20. science and the human mind

never cease to amaze me. i have complete confidence we CAN invent a worse drug. call me an optimist :)

here's one difference between meth and crack. i met plenty of recreational crack users. people who had used crack for months or even years and never become addicted (or at least had the power to control their use and only used it recreationallly). i know that goes against the 80's myth that one toke from the pipe and yer a goner, but i believe what i saw.

i have NEVER met a recreational meth user (apart from a person who has used it less than a couple of months).

it is so effective at stampeding towards the pleasure centers of the brain. people become hooked hard and fast.

it's like a 6 hr long orgasm. just the descriptions meth users told me of how it *used to* make them feel were so much more robust than those who use(d) crack.

they both suck. we agree.

i accept they can destroy lives. i just don't think throwin' people in jail is the best choice, or at least not how its currently done. there are success stories from such approach - robert downey jr being a perfect example.

[Swamp Rat]

21. I'm not for throwing ANY users in jail.

They need treatment, or to be left alone if they cannot or will not harm others.

I should have been clearer, as I meant people who manufacture crack and meth, especially the latter.

As for pot, I think everyone should have a plant or two in their garden. It smells wonderful on the vine and makes for a fast-growing and hardy, natural fence. :D

[paulsby]

22. i understand the distinction

the "punish the sellers not the users' approach. i have some sympathy for that approach, as i stated.

otoh, it kind of rubs me the wrong way because all the sellers are doing is cater to a demand. if people (iow users) would stop BUYING the stuff, dealers would go out of business. but in the end, i am comfortable with harsh(er) sentences for dealers than users.

as far as MANUFACTURE goes, i think it is BETTER for somebody to manufacture their own meth and use it themselves vs. buying it. would you treat a manufacturer of SELF-ADMINISTERED meth more harshly than a user who buys it?

i find the former less offensive because they do not contribue to the drug market. they are self-contained.

same as a guy who grows his own pot. the law treats that much more harshly than a guy with a few buds in his possession (which where i live would probably get thrown out by the cop on scene more times than not), but in reality the guy who grows solely for his own consumption harms nobody.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Ok, I wasn't very clear, again.

It's too late and I'm very sleepy. :D

I meant people who manufacture with the intent to distribute meth, not only to fulfill a demand, but to create/grow the market... i.e. sell to kids.

Growing one's own 'stash' is fine by me. However, I believe making meth is quite dangerous, and I don't want some shit head blowing up his house next to mine or harming innocent bystanders.

[paulsby]

24. yes

i just wanted to make that distinction. also, fwiw, as somebody who has been in SCORES of meth labs (big fun, let me tell ya), the whole "blowing shit up " thang in regards to meth labs is largely anti-drug propaganda. it is pretty rare.

the real danger from the labs are the incredibly environmentally dangerous chemicals, and the fumes inside the lab.

those are VERY bad.

i've been a cop 20 yrs, and i work in a high meth manufacture area, and i've NEVER responded to a meth lab that blew up. never.

the problem with meth cooks is that they can;t (and don't) have a method to SAFELY eliminate their waste products. the waste products from a meth lab ARE very toxic. methyl-ethyl-bad-shit, as we refer to it. they like to dump stuff in streams, watersheds and other isolated areas.

that imo is a hangin' offense!

[Swamp Rat]

27. I don't know if it's "largely anti-drug propaganda"

I Googled and found a lot of articles about exploding meth labs, some in cities. From what I read, it is not a rare occurrence, nor does it seem to be largely anti-drug propaganda.

I would not want to be living next to this guy, inner-city OR rural:


Life sentence in meth lab explosion sends message
By SARA SHEPHERD
The Kansas City Star

Bryan G. Leonard was running one of the biggest meth labs the Kansas City area has ever seen.

He had been freed early several times from previous drug sentences, prosecutors said. And when law enforcement knocked on his door Sept. 5, 2007, Leonard was ready — activating an escape plan that leveled his house, put officers’ lives at risk, endangered the public and even killed his own dog.

On Tuesday, a federal judge told Leonard he would not get off the hook again and sentenced him to life in prison without parole.

(snip)

Many meth labs can fit in a gym bag, Cooper said. Cooks might use a coffee pot to produce an ounce of the drug at a time.

Leonard’s lab filled his whole garage. He had flasks up to 5 feet tall, hundreds of pounds of pseudoephedrine, gallons of chemicals and the ability to make more than 5 pounds of meth per batch.

(snip)

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1378280.html
_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

Meth Lab Discovered In Motel Next To Sheriff's Office
Children Discovered In Room, Sheriff Says
updated 10:16 a.m. CT, Mon., Aug 10, 2009

A methamphetamine lab was discovered Wednesday inside a room at the Virginian Motel in Stuart, right next door to the Patrick County Sheriff's Department.

(snip)

Three people, Greta Bowman McAdams, 40; Kevin Wayne Woods, 35; and Jason Leonard Staples, 28; were arrested and charged with possession of precursor materials with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and manufacturing methamphetamine while in the presence of children.

Smith said a hazmat unit was called in to remove the toxic chemicals.

(snip)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32320875/ns/local_news-winstonsalem_nc/
_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

Tulsa Crews Respond To Meth Lab Fire

Posted: Mar 02, 2009 11:51 AM
Updated: Mar 02, 2009 11:10 PM
By Emory Bryan, The News On 6

TULSA, OK -- Firefighters battled a fire at what police say was a working meth lab in Brookside. Six people were arrested and the neighbors had to evacuate. It happened just a few houses away from Riverside on 37th Place.

Tulsa Police responded to a report of a strong chemical odor and presumed there was a meth lab. They pulled up, started arresting people, and then the place caught fire.

The smoke from what police say was a meth lab spread through the neighborhood. Police arrested five people within minutes of arriving and then noticed smoke coming from the garage.

(snip)

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=9930679
_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

Woman burned when meth lab explodes
By Lisa Rogers
Times Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 4:47 p.m.

A woman was critically injured Wednesday afternoon when a methamphetamine lab exploded at a house on Georgia Avenue and the house caught fire.

Neighbors called 911 after they heard an explosion and saw a woman get in a car and quickly drive away. About one-third of the house was engulfed in flames when Gadsden Fire Department arrived at the house in the Walnut Park area.

(snip)

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20090819/NEWS/908199990?Title=Woman-burned-when-meth-lab-explodes
_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

Panama City Meth Lab Explodes
Those two people who investigators believe may have connections to the meth lab that exploded Friday night are behind bars.
Posted: 10:36 AM Jul 19, 2009

(snip)

A meth lab explodes Friday night injuring at least one person and leaving the Bay County Sheriff's Office on the lookout for more suspects.

The explosion happened around 11p.m. Friday in Panama City at 2508-A Scott Road

According to the Bay County Sheriff's Office Investigators, the fire started when a meth lab inside a home blew up.

Investigators believe three adults and five children were home during the explosion.

(snip)

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/51105107.html
_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

Man dies as a result of meth lab fire
By NICOLE MARSHALL World Staff Writer
Published: 3/11/2009 7:22 AM

A victim of Tuesday’s meth-lab-linked apartment fire died late Wednesday, the same day another blaze sparked by a meth lab sent a man to a hospital and destroyed a Tulsa home.

The death of Armando Nunez, 35, was Tulsa’s first fire death of the year, Fire Capt. Michael Baker said.

Wednesday’s blaze was the fourth local fire caused by a methamphetamine lab in less than two weeks, he said.

(snip)

Police said there has been a sharp spike in the number of meth labs discovered recently. In Tulsa, 41 labs were discovered in all of 2008. So far this year, 37 have been discovered.

(snip)

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090311_11_0_Firefi926392
_______________________________________________________________


New ways to make meth:


'Shake and bake' meth recipe more prevalent
Posted: Wednesday, Aug 19, 2009 - 11:12:12 pm EDT
Clarion staff report

PRINCETON — Methamphetamine cookers have concocted a new way to make the drug and Gibson County Prosecutor Rob Krieg is asking merchants to help restrict access to items used in the process.

Krieg sent a letter this week asking retailers to consider putting “instant cold packs,” used to treat sprained ankles and other injuries, behind store counters and monitor them more closely.

The packs contain ammonium nitrate, which can be used in the “shake and bake” method of making meth, Krieg said.

(snip)

http://www.tristate-media.com/articles/2009/08/19/pdclarion/news/doc4a8cbf0166c11184987182.txt
_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Shake and bake: New recipe for meth concerns local law enforcement
by Amanda Kramer/Times-Georgian15 days ago | 1517 views | 4 | 11 | |

While on the hunt to find a Whitesburg fugitive, officers uncovered 28 separate discarded and used methamphetamine labs at two homes connected to the wanted man.

Two officers were treated for minor injuries after one of the labs exploded and released chemicals into the air

(snip)

http://www.times-georgian.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Shake+and+bake-+New+recipe+for+meth+concerns+local+law+enforcement%20&id=3080752-Shake+and+bake-+New+recipe+for+meth+concerns+local+law+enforcement&instance=west_ga_news
_______________________________________________________________


Maybe there's not many of them, but one is too many:


Published Thursday July 30, 2009

Meth labs on wheels worry police
By Roseann Moring
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
« Metro/Region

The Pontiac Sunfire swerved off Vinton Street, overcorrected and slammed into Rosalva Reyes' Nissan Maxima as Reyes drove on a curvy stretch near 35th Street.

Reyes checked on her 4-year-old daughter, who was crying about stomach pain from her seat belt. Reyes didn't give the other car much thought, even when its passenger jumped out and took off down a nearby trail.

Later that night, June 5, Reyes learned that police had found a mobile methamphetamine lab inside the red Sunfire. Reyes had never even heard of such a thing.

Not long ago, the concept was foreign to Omaha: a car, driving down the street with a miniature but fully functional — and dangerous — meth lab.


(snip)

http://www.omaha.com/article/20090730/NEWS01/707309953/-1/FRONTPAG
_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Rolling meth lab explodes in Bossier City

Posted: Jul 08, 2009 11:26 AM
Updated: Jul 14, 2009 1:00 PM

BOSSIER CITY, LA (KSLA) - A rolling meth lab exploded in Bossier City Tuesday afternoon and the Bossier Sheriff's Office has now released the name of the passenger in the vehicle.

39-year-old Christine Hervey of Oil City, Louisiana is now behind bars. In her handbag, deputies discovered four white pills, baggies and scales.

The explosion happened on Airline Dr. near Wemple Rd. around 4 p.m. Tuesday afternoon.

According to the Bossier Parish Sheriff's Office, a man and a woman were traveling North on Airline Dr., when the car caught fire.

(snip)

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?s=10663196

_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

Like you were saying, how toxic the waste is:

"The National Methamphetamine Drug Conference

Workgroup 4
Clandestine Labs: Protecting The Environment And Community


PRESENTATION SUMMARIES:
"Enforcement Program Development"
George J. Doane, Chief
California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, Sacramento,California

(snip)

Clandestine labs also produce their own toxic dangers. Metals, sulfite agents and solvents are very potent compounds that can enter the CNS and cause neural damage. The P2P method is actually a dirtier method than the ephedrine-reduction method that has fewer by products (the only redeeming quality is that this is less of a chemical disaster). Cyanide is also a very potent byproduct in this process. Corrosives and irritants are usually in liquid form, but a gas form also exists. These are very dangerous compounds.

Additionally, solvents, metals and salts are highly reactive. When one mixes these compounds, explosions can occur because many of these processes involve heating. The lab operator may start with two seemingly innocuous compounds, but, after mixing, he creates a highly-explosive compound.

The three main body areas impacted by methamphetamine are the heart, cardiovascular system and brain. Skin exposure to methamphetamine production can ultimately effect the liver and the kidneys. It can also burn the skin, the eyes and the nose, and the corrosive and irritants hurt the eyes and the nose. Cyanide, through inhalation, interrupts the body's ability to metabolize. Methamphetamine has a very specific, specialized, and desired pharmacologic profile."

(snip)

"There is an acute danger at these toxic sites. Signs posted by the Sacramento County Environmental Health Department identify the property as a clandestine lab and state, "Enter at your risk." These are not laboratories in the purest sense; they are "bucket" chemistry, literally. These sites are also dangerous because the labs are not controlled environments. Any number of solvents, precursors and hazardous agents are found in unmarked containers at these sites. The lab operators are not abiding by OSHA regulations to protect themselves or anyone else. The cookers, their families and children are living in the midst of this toxic environment.

Law enforcement and emergency-response officials are faced with extreme chemical threats: Strong acids, strong bases, sodium hydroxide (from lye and products like Draino), red phosphorus, hydriodic acid, hydrogen chloride gas, methamphetamine impurities and solvents (Freon, white gas) as well as the psychoactive drugs. Even in small quantities, exposure can have an impact on human receptors. The dangers are extreme. A lab in Carson, California, in a small motel had three fatalities. The hotel was poorly ventilated. They made a cook in the middle of the night. The people overheated chemicals, thereby creating phosphine gas, which immediately endangers life at 50 parts per million, and the incident crossed that threshold. Law enforcement may be exposed to this type of toxic threat routinely. The danger of fire and explosion risk always exists.

CAL/EPA uses its HAZMAT experience and views methamphetamine labs as hazardous waste sites requiring emergency response. It conducts an inventory of sites and abandonments, waste abandoned alongside the road or at the lab that may not have much enforcement value, yet which is toxic. EPA uses an duty officer who works closely with a CBNE agent or local law enforcement official on each lab seizure. They record what they find, and the contractor also does an inventory for law enforcement purposes. It is a very contract-management-intensive process, but it works well. Even with EPA assistance, a methamphetamine lab cleanup is still a burden on law enforcement because overseeing the scene is still necessary."

(snip)

http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/drugfact/methconf/appen-b4.html

[paulsby]

31. it's rare

but sure it happens. i'm just saying the media greatly overplays its rate of occurrence.

[paulsby]

32. it's rare

but sure it happens. i'm just saying the media greatly overplays its rate of occurrence.

[Mythsaje]

30. I generally agree...

Cocaine can mess some people up very bad, but it isn't nearly as vicious as meth. I saw meth addiction first hand twenty-five years ago in Sacramento and I KNEW the shit would be a problem. Though I'd not go so far as to say it causes crime in and of itself (that distinction belongs to alcohol), I do know that it can cause some fucked up, stupid behavior. Not to mention aggression.

Weird thing about coke, though, is that nearly every serious coke-head I've ever met couldn't tell the truth if their life depended on it. It's like lying becomes second nature. And about stuff that didn't even matter. Very weird.

[paulsby]

34. no drug

causes crime in and of itself. alcohol, fwiw, significantly lowers inhibition. so, dui offenses aside, it's kind of like that old routine from animal house where the guy has the demon and the angel on his shoulders and one is saying "don't do it" and the demon's sayin' "fuck her! cmon you know you want to". the drunk guy is more likely to listen to that demon.

meth cincreases aggressive tendencies COMBINED with paranoia, COMBINED with sleep deprivation. it's a potent combo.

[Mythsaje]

38. Well, according to the FBI it does.

Precisely because of the reasons you suggest. Alcohol contributes to all kinds of crime, from DUIs to public urination to vandalism to assault and rape, often leading to actions that the person would never have contemplated while sober. When inhibitions are lowered to the point that a sudden impulse overrides any semblance of good sense, it's hard to say whether it "causes" crime or simply makes it far, far more likely that a crime will happen.

[paulsby]

40. it's more a philosophical argument

look, i;m a cop. i well know the VAST majority of violent assmunches i deal with are drunk. i know that alcohol is frequently a factor in domestic violence, for example.

but my point stands. we have free will. no drug CAUSES people to DO anything. people still have free will.

individuals of course vary hugely, but we can state facts about the aggregate.

take a group of 500 men.

250 are at a .10 bac

250 are sober.

which group is going to have more people involved in criminal activity, to include violent activity. undeniably the .10 group.

it doesn't therefore follow, imo, that alcohol CAUSES crime. i am making that point in regards to free will, and individual responsibility.

"your honor, i was drunk. that's why i hit my wife" doesn't fly with me.

[Buzz Clik]

10. The headline and follow-up analysis reads like a Cheech and Chong script.

Pot use in private homes is no longer a priority for drug enforcement due to Measure Y.

There have been no pot arrests in private homes since the passage of Measure Y.

"It's what I've been tellin' ya, man. When the cops quit arresting people for pot use at home, no more people at home will be arrested for pot. The logic is beautiful."

[Blue_In_AK]

17. The state of Alaska has had liberal pot laws since 1975,

when the Supreme Court ruled in Ravin v. State that our state constitution's strongly-worded privacy clause protects the right to possess small quantities in one's home. The only time the cops up here bother anyone is if they suspect a major grow operation. The statute lets us have up to one ounce for personal use.

[old mark]

26. I hope this is a trend. The idea of pot smokers going to jail is stupid,

especially when the prisons - here, at least - and overcrowded and violent criminals are given early release as a result. It's a good solution to several problems as once, it the lawmakers could get the idea.....


mark

[moriah]

29. My opinion on the "War on Drugs"

(Background: My father was a drug addict, his drug of choice was meth, he moved on to crack after his veins got too bad to shoot meth anymore.... died a little less than a month ago from liver cancer after having been diagnosed with HIV since 1992 and having had bouts of Hepatitis A.)

I personally think that if something grows and doesn't have to be refined, I don't generally have a problem with it. Cocaine/crack is extracted, as are opiates, and they're up there with meth on my "evil drugs" list. Marijuana is not something I think children should be smoking, then again I don't think children should be smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. I feel marijuana use is on the same lines as alcohol and tobacco use insofar as level of damage to self and others.

What it appears that Sgt. Trisler is regretting, and admitting was done quite frequently in the past, is that they aren't able to use simple possession as probable cause to search for other drugs. I'm sure their argument, if marijuana were to be made legal, would be that many users of harder substances also use marijuana. However, the same could be said for tobacco and alcohol. Before I'd be willing to say that finding dealers of "evil drugs" is worth the inconvenience to pot smokers, I would want to see just how many arrests for simple possession of marijuana led to finding harder drugs in the search made incident to arrest, not how many people who were arrested for harder drugs also had pot.

[paulsby]

35. personally,

i can say that i've had a fair # of searches incident to arrest or based on PC for MJ have led to some decent caches of other (real) drugs and such. but really not that many.

iow, finding mj is rarely (ime) going to lead to any bitchen bust of "real" drugs or illegal weapons, or stuff like that.


iow, and i also know this from years of working undercover, that a LOT of mj users hate "hard drugs" as much or more so than many who don't smoke MJ. iow, they draw a bright line between mj and stuff like cocaine or meth.

one of the reasons i am also for decrim/legalization is that the criminalization of mj naturally places many OTHERWISE very law abiding and positive people in an adversary position w/law enforcement due to their choice to smoke MJ. i want those people on our side.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[ensho]

39. Sgt. Trisler speaks gobble de gook - he must be pouting

nt

[Echo In Light]

44. Good. Another typically phony American "war" that needs to die

[Liberal_in_LA]

45. +1

[Cleita]

46. When I lived in Santa Monica twenty years ago, several of the neighbors

smoked pot openly. Police came around knocking on our doors at times but they actually were looking for criminals or information if we saw something as there were a lot of burglaries and car thefts in our neighborhood. Although DH and I weren't pot smokers you could smell it around and the police no doubt could but they never acted on it. So I think it's been a low priority all along. I'm glad to know that they finally are decriminalizing it. None of my neighbors at that time were bad citizens. They went to work every day. They didn't play loud music nor were they nuisances or criminals. The only law they broke was smoking pot.

[spanone]

47. phony war.....