1

Meth Epidemic Solutions, Part 3:Smurfing and Meth Lab Eradication

Outline• 1. Meth labs and smurfing• 2. Smurfing solutions• 3. Legislation

www.oregondec.org

1. What makes meth different . . .

• Pseudoephedrine: The key ingredient necessary to make meth (d-methamphetamine)meth (d-methamphetamine)

Pseudo/ephedrine and Meth

d-Pseudoephedrine (C10H15NO) d-Methamphetamine (C10H15N)

A meth lab:(Ogata or Birch reduction)

Start with pseudo/ephedrine

Remove the hydroxyl group

d-Pseudoephedrine (C10H15NO)d-Methamphetamine (C10H15N)

Add back hydrogen

Source of meth manufacture• In the U.S. before effective pseudoephedrine controls:

– 35% of meth from small toxic labs– 65% from DTO super labs

2

Pseudoephedrine flowing to the super labs Most pseudoephedrine is produced in9 factories in 3 countries

Pictures courtesy of The Oregonian

Cutting off the supply PSE imports plummet . . .• Mexico:

– 2004 – 226 metric tons– 2005 – 98 metric tons– 2006 – 43 metric tons

– 2007 – 40 metric tons– 2008 – 0 metric tons– 2009 – ban

So in 2006:• Prediction:

• Meth purity would go down

• Meth price would go up

• More pressure to cook locally

Meth purity goes down . . .

3

Meth price goes up . . . So I reminded folks of my prediction . . . resurgence of local meth labs . . .

. . . and, unfortunately, it came true A resurgence . . . from Arizona . . .

. . . to Indiana. . . . . . to Ohio . . .

4

. . . to Oklahoma . . . . . . to Tennessee . . .

. . . to Texas . . . . . . to Alabama . . .

. . . to Mississippi . . . . . . to Iowa . . .

5

. . . to Louisiana . . . . . . to Michigan . . .

. . . to Missouri . . . . . . to Nebraska . . .

. . . to Montana . . . . . . to Kentucky . . .

6

. . . to Washington . . . . . . to California . . .

. . . and superlabs return to California The resurgence is fed by . .

S fi !Smurfing!

Where the smurfing is happening . . .

7

A compounding factor . . .

• Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization (DTO) meth production trends:– (A):

• DTO meth purity is high;DTO meth purity is high;• DTO meth price is down; and• DTO meth border seizures are up.

So far so good (or bad, actually)

But . . .– (B):

• DTOs are scrambling for pseudoephedrine;• Meth addicts say DTO meth is weak; and• Therefore more addicts are cooking meth.• (except Oregon - more on that later).(except Oregon more on that later).

• Problem:– (A) and (B) don't make sense together.– Having them occur simultaneously violates

usual rules of meth supply and demand.– We are missing a key metric.

The answer:

• The potency of the meth itself has changed.

• How is that so?

There are two kinds of meth

• l-methamphetamine• d-methamphetamine

C bi ti f b th

(stereoisomers)

• Combination of both:–dl-methamphetamine

d-Methamphetamine and l-Methamphetamine

d-Methamphetamine (C10H15N) l-Methamphetamine (C10H15N)

First Generation Clandestine Meth Labs(Leuckardt-Wallach Reaction, aka “P2P” method)

• Mid 1960’s to present• Synthesis of phenylacetone

(aka phenyl-2-propanone)• With methylamine• With methylamine• Not easy

– Chemistry equipment– Complicated formulas– Relatively hard to find chemicals

• Produces dl-methamphetamine

8

How about making d-Methamphetamine?

• The key ingredient . . .• Pseudo/ephedrine:

– l-Ephedrine; or p ;– d-Pseudoephedrine

Second Generation Clandestine Meth Labs(Ogata Reduction, aka “Red P” method)

• Mid 1980’s to present• Reduction of pseudo/ephedrine using• Red phosphorus (“Red P”) and iodine• Easy

– Common household equipment– Simple formulas– Easy to find chemicals

• Produces d-methamphetamine• Both small labs and super labs

Third Generation Clandestine Meth Labs(Birch Reduction, aka “Nazi” method)

• Mid 1990’s to present• Reduction of pseudo/ephedrine using• Anhydrous ammonia and lithium metal• Easy

– Common household equipment– Simple formulas– Easy to find chemicals

• Produces d-methamphetamine• Small and very small (“one pot” or

“shake & bake”) meth labs

So back to the question . . .• If:

– DTO meth purity is high;– DTO meth price is down; and– DTO meth border seizures are up.p

• But:– DTOs are scrambling for pseudoephedrine;– Meth addicts say DTO meth is weak; and– Therefore more addicts are cooking meth.– (except Oregon - more on that later).

The answer:

• The potency of the meth itself has changed.

• The DTO’s must be cutting d-meth with dl-meth and/or l-meth

• Is it true?

. . . it turns out that . . .

• DTOs are acquiring large amounts of Phenyl Acetic Acid (PAA),

• The immediate precursor to• The immediate precursor to– Phenylacetone

aka Phenyl-2-Propanone (P2P)• DTO meth now appears to

contain increasing amounts of dl-meth and l-meth

9

DEA Methamphetamine Profiling Program

• DISCLAIMER: Results published for the Methamphetamine Profiling Program (MPP) do not represent the universe of seized methamphetamine. MPP results reflect a specific population of methamphetamine samples analyzed as part of the MPP and aresamples analyzed as part of the MPP and are not representative of all methamphetamine samples submitted to the DEA Laboratory System. Furthermore, MPP sampling criteria was revised in the fourth quarter of CY2008. As such, the data is appropriate to use for snapshots or for tracking trends over time, but it is not intended to reflect the methamphetamine market share.

DEA Methamphetamine Profiling Program

Method

So why do you care?

• Because meth addicts know the DTO meth is weak; therefore

• They are cooking meth themselves;• Through smurfing, smurfing, smurfing.

2. Smurfing Solutions

Getting rid of smurfing . . .

• Options:– 1. Electronic database monitoring

• Expensive (more arrests and incarceration)B d• Burdensome

• Reactive• Limited impact . . . still have smurfing!

– 2. Prescription only• Oregon . . . since 2006 . . .

Smurfing by example . . .

10

Smurfing by example . . . The Oregon bill passed

• Broad bi-partisan support• House

– 55 to 4• Senate

– 45 to 5• Went into effect July 1, 2006

Did the sky fall?The parade of horribles . . .

PARADE ITEMS:• Public outcry

Inconvenience• Inconvenience• Medicaid costs• Impact on poor• Forced out of OR• Won’t work

NACDSCHPA

Oregon Results

• Smurfing eliminated!• Meth labs nearly

li i d!eliminated!• Meth lab incident

trends remain down!

It became a marketing strategy! And the sky didn’t fall . . .The parade of horribles never came true

PARADE ITEMS:• Public outcry

Inconvenience• Inconvenience• Medicaid costs• Impact on poor• Forced out of OR• Won’t work

NACDSCHPA

11

How does that compare . . .with the industry touted poster children?

• Three are running the “gold standard” of electronic pseudoephedrine monitoring systems:– KentuckyKentucky– Arkansas– Oklahoma

• Compared to Oregon– Eliminated smurfing– Nearly eradicated meth labs

Controlling smurfing:A Tale of Two States

• Oregon– Returned pseudoephedrine to prescription in 2006p p p p

• As it was before 1976• The year we let the Genie out of the bottle

– You’ve seen those results above• Kentucky

– Gold standard PSE electronic monitoring– Results . . .

12

The Oregon alternative “offers an effective approach . . . if broadly adopted, there would be no reason to pdevelop state or national tracking systems, resulting in substantial, ongoing savings . . . ”

- NAMSDL Meth PrecursorTracking Advisory Committee

• “Law Enforcement does not want to arrest more smurfers or find

NMPI Advisory Board

to arrest more smurfers or find more methamphetamine labs. Law Enforcement wants to eliminate smurfing and prevent methamphetamine labs.”

– NMPI position paper (October 2009)

Put another way . . .

“You are either for meth labs, or you are against meth labs.“

Marshall Fisher Director- Marshall Fisher, DirectorMississippi Bureau of Narcotics

And another impact . . .

• With DTO meth potency down . . . • . . . and local meth labs gone . . .

Oregon Drug Arrest Data

Updated February 2010

Source: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission

Summary• 1. Oregon drug arrests are down significantly since

November of 2006– But not all drugs– Just meth, and meth is the sole reason for the decline

• 2. Oregon drug arrests are slightly up since November, 2008– But not all drugs– The slight increase is primarily due to heroin and marijuana – Meth is still down

* NOTE: Oregon sworn law enforcement staffing increased during this time period.

13

OR Drug Arrests - All OR Drug Arrests - Cocaine

OR Drug Arrests - MDM OR Drug Arrests - Heroin

OR Drug Arrests - Marijuana OR Drug Arrests - Meth

14

How does that compare? Oregon and California – ADAM II

• Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program report:– Executive Summary: “In Sacramento the

proportion of arrestees involved inproportion of arrestees involved in acquiring methamphetamine in the prior 30 days remains high (26%), unchanged from 2007, but in Portland reported acquisition is significantly lower (13%) than 2007 levels (23%).”

Oregon and California – ADAM II

• Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program report:– From the Conclusion: “Methamphetamine .

declines significantly in one of the. . declines significantly in one of the ADAM II western sites (Portland) from 2007 (20% positive) to 2008 (15% positive). Thirty five percent of Sacramento arrestees test positive in 2008, representing no statistically significant change from 2007.”

15

3. Legislation California Senate Bill 484• Public Safety Committee - April 28, 2009:

• Passed 6 to 1

California Senate Bill 484• Senate floor vote – June 2, 2009

• Bi-partisan support• Passed 22 to 10

California Senate Bill 484• Assembly Public Safety• Hearing on June 30, 2009• CHPA false ad campaign• CHPA offers alternative

• KY Model• KY Sheriff• CHPA will “pay”

• SB 484 needed 4 votes to pass• 3-2-2• SB 484 on hold

Missouri cities and counties• City of Washington ordinance• Visit from the Drug Czar

Missouri cities and counties• Results from City of Washington• Six more cities and one county follow suit

16

New Zealand • The latest to move pseudoephedrine to prescription• . . . and reject industry’s offer to pay for tracking system

Mississippi• House Bill 512• CHPA usual tactics

• Didn’t work• Broad bi-partisan support• Passed House

• 105 to 15• Passed Senate

• 45 to 4• Goes into effect 7/1/2010

National legislation . . .

• United States Senator Ron Wyden• “Meth Lab Elimination Act”

Meth Epidemic Solutions, Part 3:Smurfing and Meth Lab Eradication

Questions?Check: www.oregondec.org

E-mail: rbovett@co.lincoln.or.us