warning of the hazards in dealing with chemicals that are toxic, corrosive and flammable, and which could be absorbed by inhalation and via the skin. Once the manufacture of meth democratised, away from the experienced bikie gang specialists and into the home hobbyist cohort, accidents became commonplace. According to one study, 30 per cent of the drug laboratories found by police in the state of Oregon attracted attention because there had been a mysterious explosion or fire.
The more cooks there were, the more amateurs were having a go. Fewer and fewer meth cooks knew the correct proportions of ingredients or had the skill to synthesise them properly. They produced methamphetamine of variable quality, both in terms of its potency and its purity. Where lead acetate was used in production via the P2P method, users suffered lead poisoning when they smoked or injected the product. In the late 1980s a cluster of injecting meth users presented at Oregon hospitals with acute lead poisoning. One Oregon test of a seized meth sample found that it was 60 per cent lead.
Chemical spills released solvents and cyanide into the air. Many cooks lacked adequate knowledge of how to ventilate their labs and control the temperature. On the contrary, meth cooks were typically so paranoid about being detected, they would double-seal all windows and doors so that no smells would get outâthus elevating the risk of poisoning to those inside. Meth cooks in Oregon were reported to experience skin, eye, nose, throat and lung irritations, coughing and chest pain, nausea, headache and lethargy. Extreme effects included kidney and liver damage, and fainting.
Hazardous waste was poured into sewers and septic systems and contaminated ground water and run-off into lakes and oceans. Where motel rooms were used, a toxic and flammable mess was often left behind, or at the very least traces of chemicals were left permeating carpets, furniture and curtains. Phenylacetic acid, leaving a âcatâs pissâ smell, would be a telltale after-odour once a meth lab had been dismantled and moved away. Decontamination of premises was in some cases too costly to carry out; American police allocated funds seized during busts to covering the cost of making spaces habitable again.
But if the cooking of methamphetamine was that hard, and that dangerous, and that poisonous, and that unreliable in its production of a reasonably pure and effective drug, then nobody would have been doing it. While explosions, injuries and busts were well publicised by American law enforcement officials, meth cooks were responding by developing less combustible, odour-free, more mobile labs. Nobody knows how many labs are busted each year as a proportion of those that exist. Nobody can even estimate it. (Incidentally, the US DEA has estimated that of all labs busted, 80 per cent produced crystal methamphetamine.) One thing is sure, however, which is that for all the dangers the process posed, it didnât stop millions of grams of crystal meth being produced and sold across America each year. Seizures of amphetamine-type stimulants by US Customs went from 750 000 doses in 1998 to 3 million in 1999 and 6 million by the turn of the century. Much of the Pacific coast and some of the rural western states were, by 2000, in the grip of a true crystal meth epidemic. Within four years, 12.4 million Americans said they had used methamphetamine at least once in their lives.
Even though setting up a home methamphetamine lab might have tempted thousands of users, more than three-quarters of Americaâs meth was by the end of the century produced in âsuperlabsâ controlled by organised crime groups. The superlab method goes as follows.
First, the pseudoephedrine tablets are poured into a blender and ground up. Then they are mixed, in a pot, with a solvent which separates the pseudoephedrine (or ephedrine) from the other chemicals that bind the tablets together. The mixture is
The more cooks there were, the more amateurs were having a go. Fewer and fewer meth cooks knew the correct proportions of ingredients or had the skill to synthesise them properly. They produced methamphetamine of variable quality, both in terms of its potency and its purity. Where lead acetate was used in production via the P2P method, users suffered lead poisoning when they smoked or injected the product. In the late 1980s a cluster of injecting meth users presented at Oregon hospitals with acute lead poisoning. One Oregon test of a seized meth sample found that it was 60 per cent lead.
Chemical spills released solvents and cyanide into the air. Many cooks lacked adequate knowledge of how to ventilate their labs and control the temperature. On the contrary, meth cooks were typically so paranoid about being detected, they would double-seal all windows and doors so that no smells would get outâthus elevating the risk of poisoning to those inside. Meth cooks in Oregon were reported to experience skin, eye, nose, throat and lung irritations, coughing and chest pain, nausea, headache and lethargy. Extreme effects included kidney and liver damage, and fainting.
Hazardous waste was poured into sewers and septic systems and contaminated ground water and run-off into lakes and oceans. Where motel rooms were used, a toxic and flammable mess was often left behind, or at the very least traces of chemicals were left permeating carpets, furniture and curtains. Phenylacetic acid, leaving a âcatâs pissâ smell, would be a telltale after-odour once a meth lab had been dismantled and moved away. Decontamination of premises was in some cases too costly to carry out; American police allocated funds seized during busts to covering the cost of making spaces habitable again.
But if the cooking of methamphetamine was that hard, and that dangerous, and that poisonous, and that unreliable in its production of a reasonably pure and effective drug, then nobody would have been doing it. While explosions, injuries and busts were well publicised by American law enforcement officials, meth cooks were responding by developing less combustible, odour-free, more mobile labs. Nobody knows how many labs are busted each year as a proportion of those that exist. Nobody can even estimate it. (Incidentally, the US DEA has estimated that of all labs busted, 80 per cent produced crystal methamphetamine.) One thing is sure, however, which is that for all the dangers the process posed, it didnât stop millions of grams of crystal meth being produced and sold across America each year. Seizures of amphetamine-type stimulants by US Customs went from 750 000 doses in 1998 to 3 million in 1999 and 6 million by the turn of the century. Much of the Pacific coast and some of the rural western states were, by 2000, in the grip of a true crystal meth epidemic. Within four years, 12.4 million Americans said they had used methamphetamine at least once in their lives.
Even though setting up a home methamphetamine lab might have tempted thousands of users, more than three-quarters of Americaâs meth was by the end of the century produced in âsuperlabsâ controlled by organised crime groups. The superlab method goes as follows.
First, the pseudoephedrine tablets are poured into a blender and ground up. Then they are mixed, in a pot, with a solvent which separates the pseudoephedrine (or ephedrine) from the other chemicals that bind the tablets together. The mixture is
Similar Books
