Mexico seizes 15 tons of Methamphetamine

[Baffalo]

From the New York Times

MEXICO CITY — Mexican authorities announced their largest methamphetamine seizure ever late Wednesday: 15 tons, found in pure powder form at a ranch outside Guadalajara. It was about 13 million doses worth $4 billion — more than double the size of all meth seizures at the Mexican border in 2011.

But while the authorities proudly showed off the seizure to local reporters, the sheer size of the find set off alarm among experts and officials from the United States and the United Nations. It was a sign, they said, of just how organized, efficient at manufacturing and brazen Mexico’s traffickers had become even after expanded efforts to dismantle their industry.

“The big thing it shows is the sheer capacity that these superlabs have in Mexico,” said Rusty Payne, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration. “When we see one lab with the capability to produce such a mass tonnage of meth, it begs a question: What else is out there?”

Methamphetamine is difficult to produce in large quantities. Unlike marijuana, which can be grown almost anywhere, meth requires international connections to suppliers of precursor chemicals, which are tightly regulated in the United States and Mexico, as well as manufacturers with a degree of chemistry expertise.

The Sinaloa cartel is believed to be Mexico’s main producer, partly because it has a reputation for being the world’s most multinational and sophisticated cartel. And some experts say that the seizure, along with increased seizures of meth, cocaine and marijuana at the Mexican border, suggests that Sinaloa is producing more than ever before, despite five years of increased Mexican and American efforts to defeat the Mexican cartels.

“Sinaloa has been hit hard in the past four to six months, but they are clearly operating at a volume they were not able to do 5 or 10 years ago,” said David Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego. With methamphetamine, he added: “There is really not much competition. They are probably the only ones with the organizational and logistical capacity to move this kind of product.”

United Nations figures suggest that the supply of meth in the United States has been growing, with seizures at the Mexican border increasing 87 percent in 2011. At the same time, demand in the United States has been falling. According to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of Americans 12 and older who said they had used methamphetamine in the past 12 months declined 46 percent from 2002 to 2010, to 954,000 from an estimated 1.8 million.

But just as Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers are increasingly focused on the market in Europe, experts said that the meth not sent to the United States might be heading to other parts of the world. Sinaloa’s tentacles have been found on nearly every continent.

Over all, experts said, meth appears to be providing an increasingly important revenue stream for the cartel, and the seizure this week is likely to have little long-term impact.

“It’s important to keep the seizure in perspective,” said Eric Olson, a security expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “It’s huge. Eye-popping. But seizures, even huge ones, don’t generally change the demand for the drug in the long run. If a seizure of this magnitude raises the street price, consumption may go down for a time, but it is only a matter of time until the market adjusts and the supply comes back up.”

[RedImperator]

But while the authorities proudly showed off the seizure to local reporters, the sheer size of the find set off alarm among experts and officials from the United States and the United Nations. It was a sign, they said, of just how organized, efficient at manufacturing and brazen Mexico’s traffickers had become even after expanded efforts to dismantle their industry.

About ten years ago, the DEA started imposing measures to cut off raw materials to backyard meth labs. This is why if your need Sudafed and you get to the drugstore after the pharmacist has left, you're shit out of luck. The program was actually fairly successful, driving a lot of domestic producers out of business.

So now instead Mexican drug lords are producing it at industrial scales. Yet another rousing success for US drug policy.

[Broomstick]

Since the policy change has resulted in fewer exploding sheds, houses, apartments, hotel rooms, and cars driving down the road in my area (yes, there were idiots putting meth labs in the trunks of cars) it actually HAS been a success in regards to reducing collateral damage in areas that previously really did have an epidemic of exploding amateur labs. Which, by the way, not only would take out the cookers but also potentially those in adjoining apartments and hotel rooms, not to mention blazing car accidents.

I am sorry that you were not aware that this has actually mitigated some of the worst problems of amateur meth cooking. Me, I'm happy that things in my neighborhood go BOOM! much less often.

Of course, this has resulted in a different set of problems. That is often the way of the world. However, the restriction of OTC pseudoephedrine sales really has made for some positive change in areas previously hard hit by amateur lab issues, even if it hasn't reduced demand. Since part of the goal was to discourage amateur labs to that extent it actually HAS been successful. Or maybe most people don't give a fuck if the neighbors of druggies get killed as collateral damage from illegal production.

[RedImperator]

Since the policy change has resulted in fewer exploding sheds, houses, apartments, hotel rooms, and cars driving down the road in my area (yes, there were idiots putting meth labs in the trunks of cars) it actually HAS been a success in regards to reducing collateral damage in areas that previously really did have an epidemic of exploding amateur labs. Which, by the way, not only would take out the cookers but also potentially those in adjoining apartments and hotel rooms, not to mention blazing car accidents.

I am sorry that you were not aware that this has actually mitigated some of the worst problems of amateur meth cooking. Me, I'm happy that things in my neighborhood go BOOM! much less often.

Of course, this has resulted in a different set of problems. That is often the way of the world. However, the restriction of OTC pseudoephedrine sales really has made for some positive change in areas previously hard hit by amateur lab issues, even if it hasn't reduced demand. Since part of the goal was to discourage amateur labs to that extent it actually HAS been successful. Or maybe most people don't give a fuck if the neighbors of druggies get killed as collateral damage from illegal production.

Cutting down on collateral damage from amateur meth lab accidents was secondary to the DEA's goal of restricting the availability of meth on the open market. Not only did it fail to do that, it has made the problem substantially worse by putting the market under the control of better capitalized, better armed Mexican operations with access to international distribution channels.

PS: 47,000 dead Mexicans probably don't give a fuck if a couple unlucky Yankees a year bite it when some local asshole's meth lab blows up.

PPS: It's hilarious you imply I'm some kind of callous asshole for not knowing or not caring about people in poor neighborhoods who have to deal with the consequences of meth lab blowups, but a government policy that directs a new multi-billion dollar revenue stream into the hands of cartels which have killed nearly a thousand (poor) children in the last five years is "the way of the world".

[Grumman]

It boggles the mind. When I think of drugs, I think of the little boxes where having more than a gram of a drug in one place is unusual.

Fifteen tons!? What's that, a shipping container's full?

[The Spartan]

From a weight perspective it's right near a container's limit, as I recall. Though if you want an idea of just how much that is, well, just look at the picture in the OP. There's probably a good portion of that behind the soldier in the picture.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Tangentially, it's probable that Mexican superlab meth has fewer dangerous adulterants than the amateur variety. I mean, obviously it will be cut with some other substances, and cut more as it goes down distribution channels, but the chances are higher of most of those being mostly inert substances, as opposed to the dangerous precipitates that a junkie on a 70-hour bender making meth in his basement is likely to end up adding to the final product. It would be almost impossible to factor this kind of variable into the moral arithmetic of this drug policy, of course, but it is worth considering that the meth of the 90s that was probably made in some biker's bathtub was probably a very different sort of substance than the kind produced by Mexican superlabs, probably by professional chemists in a lot of cases.

Despite how largely irrelevant that is, it's all I have to contribute to this discussion aside from a series of Breaking Bad references in increasingly poor taste.

[Broomstick]

PS: 47,000 dead Mexicans probably don't give a fuck if a couple unlucky Yankees a year bite it when some local asshole's meth lab blows up.

It wasn't a "couple" of Yankees, the US death toll from illegal meth labs is also in the thousands. So turn it around - a few thousand Yankees living in poor urban and rural areas (the usual site for such things) probably don't give a fuck about a few thousand Mexicans getting gunned down by a cartel. But while Americans not giving a fuck is supposed to be a bad thing, somehow it's OK for Mexicans not to give a fuck about Americans. Surprise, people tend to care first about their immediate neighbors and friends, then about people in some other country.

15 to 20 percent of illegal meth labs in the US are found due to the place exploding or catching fire. With numbers of illegal labs found over the past ten years ranging from 7,000 to 17,000 that's between 1,000 and 4,000 labs a year blowing up. In addition to immediate deaths from fire and explosion, there are the severe burn cases and the long term central nervous system, liver, and other organ damage incurred from the hazmat nature of such labs. These labs also cause long-term environmental hazards that are very expensive and some what dangerous to clean up.

While I do, in fact, care about Mexicans hurt, maimed, or killed in the drug wars I also happen to care about me, my family, my fiends, and my neighbors who might or have been hurt, maimed, or killed by illegal drugs, their manufacture, and the fall-out from the drug wars that occurs here.

PPS: It's hilarious you imply I'm some kind of callous asshole for not knowing or not caring about people in poor neighborhoods who have to deal with the consequences of meth lab blowups, but a government policy that directs a new multi-billion dollar revenue stream into the hands of cartels which have killed nearly a thousand (poor) children in the last five years is "the way of the world".

Acknowledging that one can push criminal and/or hazardous activity out of one area only to have it appear elsewhere is NOT condoning that activity. It is, however, a very common effect of "cleaning up" a problem in one area. Funny, though, no one seems to argue that, for example, we shouldn't combat breaking and entering theft in homes in, say, New York City because that might result in more such occurring in New Jersey... at least until the New Jersey police crack down and the thieves move somewhere else again.

What are you proposing? That the US simply ignore the death toll from amateur chemical factories in its own cities in order to save lives in Mexico? That we simply accept the deaths and maiming of thousands in the US and attempt nothing whatsoever? Well, I suppose an argument could be made for the US invading Mexico to take on the drug cartels...except, of course, such international interventionism is considered a Bad Thing these days as well. And, based on historical examples, unlikely to be terribly effective in the medium and long terms.

It is no more acceptable for Americans to die in the drug wars than for Mexicans to do so, and vice versa. Do you have a proposal that would reduce the problem on BOTH sides of the border simultaneously?

[Broomstick]

Tangentially, it's probable that Mexican superlab meth has fewer dangerous adulterants than the amateur variety. I mean, obviously it will be cut with some other substances, and cut more as it goes down distribution channels, but the chances are higher of most of those being mostly inert substances, as opposed to the dangerous precipitates that a junkie on a 70-hour bender making meth in his basement is likely to end up adding to the final product.

Almost certainly the cartel labs run by actual chemists are less hazardous, if only because they are less likely to blow up and/or leak shit into the local environment. I'm not conversant with the various ways of making meth, but the different amateur techniques produce slightly different hazards, it's not unreasonable to think a professional and/or industrial process would have different byproducts.

[The Kernel]

It wasn't a "couple" of Yankees, the US death toll from illegal meth labs is also in the thousands.

I call bullshit on this, provide evidence to back this claim up.

15 to 20 percent of illegal meth labs in the US are found due to the place exploding or catching fire. With numbers of illegal labs found over the past ten years ranging from 7,000 to 17,000 that's between 1,000 and 4,000 labs a year blowing up. In addition to immediate deaths from fire and explosion, there are the severe burn cases and the long term central nervous system, liver, and other organ damage incurred from the hazmat nature of such labs. These labs also cause long-term environmental hazards that are very expensive and some what dangerous to clean up.

Provide your source for this data.

[Broomstick]

For starters, this DEA website lists meth lab "incidents" from 2004-2010. Do please note that my state, Indiana, has one of the higher rates of such incidents which is, perhaps, why I have some strong personal feelings on the matter.

Regrettably, after a drop of several years after imposing stronger controls on precursor chemicals it seems the rate of incidents are rising again. I don't know why that is.

[The Kernel]

From your own link:

These maps include all meth incidents, including labs, "dumpsites" or "chemical and glassware" seizures.

You think that link somehow proves your "thousands of deaths" numbers or tales of exploding meth labs?

Just admit you pulled that number out of your ass. Linking away to some weak DEA site with zero details doesn't make you look any smarter.

[Broomstick]

This CDC site discusses hazardous substance releases from illicit meth labs. It includes a link to this table listing 1000+ injuries over several years from hazardous releases at meth labs, but covers only 16 states and does not include those states with the highest number of such labs. Unless you propose a mechanism where meth-heads in places like Indiana, Kentucky, etc. are somehow inherently safer cookers it is a reasonable assumption that the actual injury numbers are much higher when considering the nation as a whole.

Gathering this data is made more difficult by no mandate to report such incidents on either the Federal level or in most states, therefore, these are the incidents that were either reported in those few states that do require reporting, or that someone was arsed to the let the CDC know about.

It is more difficult to get reliable figures on deaths. The actual, immediate deaths for an incident usually aren't that great, but a significant number of people die later, in burn wards, some months down the line and aren't always included in such totals, even though the burns that killed them were directly related to meth production. In some places like rural Kentucky, though, allegedly up to 1/3 of burn patients in the hospitals were burned while cooking meth. Likewise, deaths down the line from chemical exposure and toxicity may or may not be included in one total or another.

This paper on meth lab hazards (referred to in prior links) gives a figure of 2.5% of people injured by meth labs dying - but, again, from my reading that is immediate or relatively quick deaths, the reporting concentrates on first responders (probably not a surprise, as the origin of the data is largely from first responders) and thus may miss deaths among lab workers/addicts, and only covers 16 states, none of which are the in the high numbers of labs groups. The paper also mentions that even among first responders who report this data, an unknown number of incidents go unreported due to concerns about compromising criminal investigations. Also significant is this quote: "Staff from the participating states also saw that many clandestine meth lab incidents, although reported within the states, did not meet the HSEES case definition because they were not acute events involving a release within the 72-hour period." Again, we're back to missing deaths that occurred later - say, after six months in a burn ward.

Thus, I extrapolated number of deaths from a number of sources, and didn't not give a hard and fast number because, frankly, it would be impossible to due so. However, it is apparent to me that the deaths resulting from illicit meth labs in the US is more than just "a few".

[Broomstick]

From your own link:

These maps include all meth incidents, including labs, "dumpsites" or "chemical and glassware" seizures.

You think that link somehow proves your "thousands of deaths" numbers or tales of exploding meth labs?

You think lab dumpsites aren't dangerous? Do you think an injury due to a lab dumpsite is somehow not really an injury? Do you think such dumpsites don't explode, catch fire, or make people ill? Do you think "lab dumpsites" somehow magically appear without connection to actual meth labs?

[The Kernel]

This CDC site discusses hazardous substance releases from illicit meth labs. It includes a link to this table listing 1000+ injuries over several years from hazardous releases at meth labs, but covers only 16 states and does not include those states with the highest number of such labs. Unless you propose a mechanism where meth-heads in places like Indiana, Kentucky, etc. are somehow inherently safer cookers it is a reasonable assumption that the actual injury numbers are much higher when considering the nation as a whole.

Too bad the data lumps all injuries together under meth production huh? It barely even mentions death and certainly does nothing to prove your earlier statements.

Gathering this data is made more difficult by no mandate to report such incidents on either the Federal level or in most states, therefore, these are the incidents that were either reported in those few states that do require reporting, or that someone was arsed to the let the CDC know about.

Sorry but actual meth lab EXPLOSIONS still make the news. The only stuff that flies under the radar is fires that don't lead to mass amounts of death.

It is more difficult to get reliable figures on deaths. The actual, immediate deaths for an incident usually aren't that great, but a significant number of people die later, in burn wards, some months down the line and aren't always included in such totals, even though the burns that killed them were directly related to meth production.

Evidence of this?

In some places like rural Kentucky, though, allegedly up to 1/3 of burn patients in the hospitals were burned while cooking meth. Likewise, deaths down the line from chemical exposure and toxicity may or may not be included in one total or another.

"Allegedly"? You consider that proof?

This paper on meth lab hazards (referred to in prior links) gives a figure of 2.5% of people injured by meth labs dying - but, again, from my reading that is immediate or relatively quick deaths, the reporting concentrates on first responders (probably not a surprise, as the origin of the data is largely from first responders) and thus may miss deaths among lab workers/addicts, and only covers 16 states, none of which are the in the high numbers of labs groups. The paper also mentions that even among first responders who report this data, an unknown number of incidents go unreported due to concerns about compromising criminal investigations. Also significant is this quote: "Staff from the participating states also saw that many clandestine meth lab incidents, although reported within the states, did not meet the HSEES case definition because they were not acute events involving a release within the 72-hour period." Again, we're back to missing deaths that occurred later - say, after six months in a burn ward.

Actually the abstract DOES cover deaths after admission to the hospital and you are still looking at only 18 confirmed deaths over 7 years from meth lab "incidents". That's hardly thousands.

Thus, I extrapolated number of deaths from a number of sources, and didn't not give a hard and fast number because, frankly, it would be impossible to due so. However, it is apparent to me that the deaths resulting from illicit meth labs in the US is more than just "a few".

A shame you've been completely unable to prove this.

[The Kernel]

You think lab dumpsites aren't dangerous? Do you think an injury due to a lab dumpsite is somehow not really an injury? Do you think such dumpsites don't explode, catch fire, or make people ill? Do you think "lab dumpsites" somehow magically appear without connection to actual meth labs?

Wow what an incredible strawman you have created there for yourself. I said that you were full of shit about thousands of deaths and that you pulled your numbers out of your ass and you respond by saying that I think meth labs and dumpsites aren't dangerous?

[Ryan Thunder]

Well, anyway, we can't just let people get meth. So, how do we (or you Americans, rather, since I'm not sure how big of an issue it is up here) manage this without handing the cartels a market?

[RedImperator]

PS: 47,000 dead Mexicans probably don't give a fuck if a couple unlucky Yankees a year bite it when some local asshole's meth lab blows up.

It wasn't a "couple" of Yankees, the US death toll from illegal meth labs is also in the thousands. So turn it around - a few thousand Yankees living in poor urban and rural areas (the usual site for such things) probably don't give a fuck about a few thousand Mexicans getting gunned down by a cartel. But while Americans not giving a fuck is supposed to be a bad thing, somehow it's OK for Mexicans not to give a fuck about Americans. Surprise, people tend to care first about their immediate neighbors and friends, then about people in some other country.

I'll eat my fucking shoes if there have been "thousands" of bystander deaths from meth lab explosions. Prove this. I strongly doubt there have even been "thousands" of meth cookers killed in lab accidents, let alone bystanders.

I started composing this post before lunch, and by the time I got back, The Kernel had already challenged you to do this. I'm not going to break down the back and forth between you and him because it would just be forcing you to repeat yourself, but the short version is that my initial hunch was correct: you have absolutely no data to back any of this up and just threw out the "thousands" number because your gut told you it was right and you needed it to be "thousands" so you could draw some kind of equivalence between loss of life from domestic meth labs and the carnage of the Mexican drug war.

Which brings us to the next point: the death toll from the drug war in Mexico isn't "thousands", it's "tens of thousands", an entire order of magnitude more, so your attempted equivalence argument is bullshit and it would be bullshit even if you were right about meth lab accident casualties. Now, not all of them were innocent victims, but on the other hand, domestic meth producers aren't waging a fucking armed insurgency against the government, either, so even if your "thousands" number holds held up the domestic meth industry still has a long way to go before it can approach the destructiveness of the Mexican cartels who have been further enriched by the DEA's meth policy (in fact their entire existence is a product of US drug policy, but that's a discussion for another time).

15 to 20 percent of illegal meth labs in the US are found due to the place exploding or catching fire. With numbers of illegal labs found over the past ten years ranging from 7,000 to 17,000 that's between 1,000 and 4,000 labs a year blowing up. In addition to immediate deaths from fire and explosion, there are the severe burn cases and the long term central nervous system, liver, and other organ damage incurred from the hazmat nature of such labs. These labs also cause long-term environmental hazards that are very expensive and some what dangerous to clean up.

Even if I grant you those numbers, I like how you're 1) conflating "fire" and "explosion" and 2) implying that the number of fires and explosions combined tells us anything about the number of deaths and severe injuries without knowing the rate of death and severe injury from these accidents. I also like how you don't present any numbers for how many are poisoned by the chemicals involved or what percentage are bystanders, even though the crux of your entire argument is that meth labs are causing a statistically significant number of deaths and injuries to innocent bystanders. The Kernel tackled this, and as I expected, your methodology was badly flawed. I do like that you later quoted a source that listed only eighteen confirmed deaths in seven years as if it supported your argument. Do you really think, even if all your assumptions bore out, that these deaths are being underreported by two orders of magnitude?

Here's a counter-proposal: 1000 or more people have not been killed in meth lab accidents, let alone 1000 bystanders. Period. If there had been, somebody would be keeping count, because 1000 deaths in five years from exploding meth labs would actually be a serious public health problem, which still wouldn't be justification for enriching Mexican cartels with billions of meth dollars, but would at least be fucking noticeable enough to merit a paper or two.

While I do, in fact, care about Mexicans hurt, maimed, or killed in the drug wars I also happen to care about me, my family, my fiends, and my neighbors who might or have been hurt, maimed, or killed by illegal drugs, their manufacture, and the fall-out from the drug wars that occurs here.

I have a fun idea: I'm about to use your ethical reasoning. In my part of the country, meth isn't as big a problem as it is elsewhere, thanks to the rivers of inexpensive cocaine flowing up and down the New Jersey Turnpike. In fact, in 2010, there were zero recorded meth lab incidents in New Jersey (source). The poor people in my family, my circle of friends, and my neighborhood are unlikely to be hurt, maimed, or killed by meth lab accidents.

Therefore, why should I even give a fuck about meth labs in Indiana? This is your exact moral reasoning here: proximity=greater moral worth. I guess you can stow your outrage about my alleged callousness towards poor people now.

I am actually sorry for bystanders hurt and killed in meth lab accidents, but between American drug gluttony and American drug law, we're literally destroying Mexico, and funneling an entirely new multi-billion dollar revenue stream to the fucking cartels isn't going to make it any better.

Acknowledging that one can push criminal and/or hazardous activity out of one area only to have it appear elsewhere is NOT condoning that activity. It is, however, a very common effect of "cleaning up" a problem in one area. Funny, though, no one seems to argue that, for example, we shouldn't combat breaking and entering theft in homes in, say, New York City because that might result in more such occurring in New Jersey... at least until the New Jersey police crack down and the thieves move somewhere else again.

This analogy is so broken I can't believe someone actually made it. Meth is a product, with a growing customer base and an excellent return on investment. Stamping out production in the United States practically guarantees someone else is going to step in, and those alternate suppliers were almost invariably going to be worse than rednecks making bathtub crank. Which is exactly what happened. This is nothing like property crimes, which are almost always committed by locals against locals. If New York City starts cracking down on burglary, fucking crackheads aren't going to hop on the fucking PATH and start burglarizing fucking Hoboken.

PS: The DEA's primary goal was not and never was protecting poor people from exploding meth labs. The DEA was trying to reduce meth consumption by restricting the supply. Not only did it completely and predictably fail, but the agency actually undermined its efforts against other drugs by further enriching the cartels which are already the primary supplies for marijuana and cocaine into the United States. You snipped this part of my reply last time, which I'll take as a concession, but if I say "policy X was stupid because it made the situation it was trying to address worse", and you reply "policy X had good secondary effects (that are entirely local)", that doesn't make it a good fucking policy.

Oh yeah, incidentally: the best part about all this is that the policy doesn't seem to be working to accomplish its secondary goal, at least not in the long term. Check this shit out. After a sharp drop from 2004 to 2007, the number of meth lab "incidents" rose 54% in three years. There are, of course, other possible explanations for the rise (stricter enforcement, a change in reporting guidelines, etc.), but even by your standards, you can't begin to characterize the DEA's policy as a success.

(I notice you did find this map, but for some reason, you tried to use it to bolster your argument instead of stuffing it away somewhere and hoping I didn't find it)

What are you proposing? That the US simply ignore the death toll from amateur chemical factories in its own cities in order to save lives in Mexico? That we simply accept the deaths and maiming of thousands in the US and attempt nothing whatsoever? Well, I suppose an argument could be made for the US invading Mexico to take on the drug cartels...except, of course, such international interventionism is considered a Bad Thing these days as well. And, based on historical examples, unlikely to be terribly effective in the medium and long terms.

It is no more acceptable for Americans to die in the drug wars than for Mexicans to do so, and vice versa. Do you have a proposal that would reduce the problem on BOTH sides of the border simultaneously?

My proposal is to legalize recreational drugs and has been for at least the last ten years. Failing that, I would probably say it's better to deal with the collateral damage from domestic meth production than to enrich the fucking cartels which are tearing Mexico apart and funneling practically all the other goddamn drugs into this country.

[Broomstick]

Red, you quoted 47,000 dead Mexicans in a thread about methamphetamine. Now it's YOUR turn to provide a cite for 47,000 deaths in Mexico from methamphatamine production or admit you're inflating YOUR number with TOTAL deaths from all the fall out of the drug wars.

Apples to apples, not apples to kumquats. How many deaths in Mexico from METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION, not total drug war deaths. Provide cites.

[MKSheppard]

Meth Labs cause no harm?

Link

A crude new method of making methamphetamine poses a risk even to Americans who never get anywhere near the drug: It is filling hospitals with thousands of uninsured burn patients requiring millions of dollars in advanced treatment — a burden so costly that it’s contributing to the closure of some burn units.
So-called shake-and-bake meth is produced by combining raw, unstable ingredients in a 2-liter soda bottle. But if the person mixing the noxious brew makes the slightest error, such as removing the cap too soon or accidentally perforating the plastic, the concoction can explode, searing flesh and causing permanent disfigurement, blindness or even death.

An Associated Press survey of key hospitals in the nation’s most active meth states showed that up to a third of patients in some burn units were hurt while making meth, and most were uninsured. The average treatment costs $6,000 per day. And the average meth patient’s hospital stay costs $130,000 — 60 percent more than other burn patients, according to a study by doctors at a burn center in Kalamazoo, Mich.

The influx of patients is overwhelming hospitals and becoming a major factor in the closure of some burn wards. At least seven burn units across the nation have shut down over the past six years, partly due to consolidation but also because of the cost of treating uninsured patients, many of whom are connected to methamphetamine.

Burn experts agree the annual cost to taxpayers is well into the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, although it is impossible to determine a more accurate number because so many meth users lie about the cause of their burns.

Larger meth labs have been bursting into flame for years, usually in basements, backyard sheds or other private spaces. But those were fires that people could usually escape. Using the shake-and-bake method, drugmakers typically hold the flammable concoction up close, causing burns from the waist to the face.

“You’re holding a flame-thrower in your hands,” said Jason Grellner of the Franklin County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department.

Also known as the “one-pot” approach, the method is popular because it uses less pseudoephedrine — a common component in some cold and allergy pills. It also yields meth in minutes rather than hours, and it’s cheaper and easier to conceal. Meth cooks can carry all the ingredients in a backpack and mix them in a bathroom stall or the seat of a car.

The improvised system first emerged several years ago, partly in response to attempts by many states to limit or forbid over-the-counter access to pseudoephedrine. Since then, the shake-and-bake recipe has spread to become the method of choice.

By 2010, about 80 percent of labs busted by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration were using shake-and-bake recipes, said Pat Johnakin, a DEA agent specializing in meth.

So instead of a large lab that supplies many users, there are now more people making meth for their personal use. The consequences are showing up in emergency rooms and burn wards.

“From what we see on the medical side, that’s the primary reason the numbers seem to be going up: greater numbers of producers making smaller batches,” said Dr. Michael Smock, director of the burn unit at Mercy Hospital St. Louis.

It’s impossible to know precisely how many people are burned while making shake-and-bake meth. Some avoid medical treatment, and no one keeps exact track of those who go to the hospital. But many burn centers in the nation’s most active meth-producing states report sharp spikes in the number of patients linked to meth. And experts say the trend goes well beyond those facilities, easily involving thousands of drug users.

The director of the burn center at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, the state that led the nation in meth lab seizures in 2010, said meth injuries are doubly damaging because patients often suffer thermal burn from the explosion, as well as chemical burns. And the medical challenge is compounded by patients’ addictions.

“You’re not judgmental in this kind of work, but you see it day after day,” said Vanderbilt’s Dr. Jeffrey Guy. “We’ve had patients say, ‘I’m going out for a smoke,’ and they come back all jacked up. It’s clear they went out and did meth again.”

Few people burned by meth will admit it.

“We get a lot of people who have strange stories,” said Dr. David Greenhalgh, past president of the American Burn Association and director of the burn center at the University of California, Davis. “They’ll say they were working on the carburetor at 2 or 3 in the morning and things blew up. So we don’t know for sure, but 25 to 35 percent of our patients are meth-positive when we check them.”

Guy cited a similar percentage at Vanderbilt, which operates the largest burn unit in Tennessee. He said the lies can come with a big price because the chemicals used in meth-making are often as dangerous as the burns themselves.

He recalled the case of a woman who arrived with facial burns that she said were caused by a toaster. As a result, she didn’t tell doctors that meth-making chemicals got into her eyes, delaying treatment.

“Now she’s probably going to be blind because she wasn’t honest about it,” Guy said.

In Indiana, about three-quarters of meth busts now involve shake-and-bake. And injuries are rising sharply, mostly because of burns, said Niki Crawford of the Indiana State Police Meth Suppression Team.

Indiana had 89 meth-related injuries during the 10-year period ending in 2009. The state has had 70 in the last 23 months, mostly from shake-and-bake labs, Crawford said.

What’s more, meth-related burns often sear some of the body’s most sensitive areas — the face and hands.

“I don’t think a lot of these patients will be able to re-enter society, said Dr. Lucy Wibbenmeyer of the burn center at the University of Iowa. “They’ll need rehab therapy, occupational therapy, which is very expensive.”

Researchers at the University of Iowa found that people burned while making meth typically have longer hospital stays and more expensive bills than other burn patients — bills that are frequently absorbed by the hospital since a vast majority of the meth-makers lack insurance.

Medicaid provides reimbursement for many patients lacking private insurance, but experts say it amounts to pennies on the dollar.

Doctors at Bronson Methodist Hospital in Kalamazoo, Mich., performed a five-year study of meth patients in the early 2000s, then a follow-up study in 2009-2010. Their investigation concurred with the Iowa findings. The Kalamazoo study also found that meth burn victims were more likely to suffer damage to the lungs and windpipe, spent more time on ventilators and needed surgery more often.

That report also found that only about 10 percent of meth patients had private insurance coverage, compared with 59 percent of other patients. And in many cases, their injuries leave them unable to work.

[Broomstick]

I'll eat my fucking shoes if there have been "thousands" of bystander deaths from meth lab explosions. Prove this. I strongly doubt there have even been "thousands" of meth cookers killed in lab accidents, let alone bystanders.

Is there a POINT to leaving so much strikout in your post, other than just adding bandwidth? I'm not going to bother replaying to what you've clearly edited out.

Which brings us to the next point: the death toll from the drug war in Mexico isn't "thousands", it's "tens of thousands", an entire order of magnitude more, so your attempted equivalence argument is bullshit and it would be bullshit even if you were right about meth lab accident casualties.

Except I wasn't talking about TOTAL deaths from ALL of the drug war bullshit, just the METH casualities. So how many of your 47,000 were the result of fall out from pot, heroin, and other forms of drug production? How many over turf battles?

How many are related to METH?

The Kernel tackled this, and as I expected, your methodology was badly flawed. I do like that you later quoted a source that listed only eighteen confirmed deaths in seven years as if it supported your argument. Do you really think, even if all your assumptions bore out, that these deaths are being underreported by two orders of magnitude?

Yep, I think it's a distinct possibility for several reasons:

1) The highest US casualties are among the poor and minority, especially those who are both poor AND minority. Such people are marginalized enough in US society that their health and social problems are routinely ignored. The middle-class and rich in the US, by and large, don't give a fuck about the poor. Quite a few white people don't give a fuck about minorities. Combine the two and they're largely seen as expendable, if not actual vermin.

2) There are political reasons to downplay the collateral damage from drug wars in the US - admitting to the full extent of the problem might cause people to question the current power structure and course of the so-called "war on drugs". We have better reporting mechanisms for fucking measles than we do for drug-related deaths in this country

3) The only solid reporting and numbers are from states with relatively light meth production. If another state has two orders of magnitude more meth labs then, assuming the same rate of casualties (of any category) I would assuming two orders of magnitude more casualties in absolute numbers. I suggest you compare, say, 2010 Utah (7 reported incidents) with Indiana (1,213 reported incidents) for an example of that. Utah is in the 16 state study, Indiana is not. Gee, that couldn't possibly skew the stats, could it? [/sarcasm]

Note that this is an opinion and not an established fact, so don't bother yelling for a cite on that - you asked, and I answered. If you choose to believe differently, well, we all have our opinions.

DO keep in mind that the statistics I quoted are NOT for regions with the greatest number of meth labs or related activity. It is for JUST SIXTEEN STATES, less than half. Extrapolating the same rate to all the other states would yield 56 deaths, and it is reasonable to assume that in states with an order of magnitude more meth labs the death rate might well be equally greater in absolute numbers even if not in percentages. Why make that effort? Because there is NO mandated reporting on these deaths, and indeed, some incentive to NOT report them at all!

Here's a counter-proposal: 1000 or more people have not been killed in meth lab accidents, let alone 1000 bystanders. Period. If there had been, somebody would be keeping count, because 1000 deaths in five years from exploding meth labs would actually be a serious public health problem, which still wouldn't be justification for enriching Mexican cartels with billions of meth dollars, but would at least be fucking noticeable enough to merit a paper or two.

Oh, please, the US has what, 40,000+ car fatalities a year, this is widely known and widely quoted but pretty much no one gives a fuck about that, either. No, the media keeps people far more concerned with much more unlikely scary shit, like pedophiles crawling into a child's window in the middle of the night for a rape/murder.

While I do, in fact, care about Mexicans hurt, maimed, or killed in the drug wars I also happen to care about me, my family, my fiends, and my neighbors who might or have been hurt, maimed, or killed by illegal drugs, their manufacture, and the fall-out from the drug wars that occurs here.

I have a fun idea: I'm about to use your ethical reasoning. In my part of the country, meth isn't as big a problem as it is elsewhere, thanks to the rivers of inexpensive cocaine flowing up and down the New Jersey Turnpike. In fact, in 2010, there were zero recorded meth lab incidents in New Jersey (source). The poor people in my family, my circle of friends, and my neighborhood are unlikely to be hurt, maimed, or killed by meth lab accidents.

Therefore, why should I even give a fuck about meth labs in Indiana? This is your exact moral reasoning here: proximity=greater moral worth. I guess you can stow your outrage about my alleged callousness towards poor people now.

I see no problem with you caring more about cocaine traffic in your area than meth if that is indeed the case. I would EXPECT you to care far less about meth labs in Indiana than the New Jersey crackhouse next door to you.

Make no mistake, it's not that I have no empathy towards injured, maimed, and dead Mexicans, it's just that I care MORE about the people closer to me both emotionally and geographically. What I can't understand is why someone in New Jersey gives more of damn about Mexicans than his fellow US citizens - but then, maybe you have some connection to Mexico I'm unaware of.

Did you expect me to be outraged because, if cocaine is a problem in New Jersey and meth isn't that people in New Jersey care more about crackhouses than meth labs? I'm not. It makes complete sense to me that that is how people would think. Likewise, I don't expect Mexicans to give a shit about Yankees when their neighbors are dying.

I am actually sorry for bystanders hurt and killed in meth lab accidents, but between American drug gluttony and American drug law, we're literally destroying Mexico, and funneling an entirely new multi-billion dollar revenue stream to the fucking cartels isn't going to make it any better.

Oddly enough, we are both in agreement about that - on the other hand, it is a fact that less shit is blowing up in my neighborhood since the new precursor chemical laws went on the books. I'm sorry you don't see this as a good thing, albeit on a local level, but I sure as hell find it a relief. I am in complete agreement that the knock-on effects suck, but even if we reversed those laws and some local production resumed by this time the cartels have got their assembly lines going, it wouldn't erase their participation at this point.

If New York City starts cracking down on burglary, fucking crackheads aren't going to hop on the fucking PATH and start burglarizing fucking Hoboken.

They might, if those crackheads are funding their habit largely through theft. Thieves generally make some effort to maximize their return, and calculation of hte likelihood of being caught does factor into it. Please try again.

PS: The DEA's primary goal was not and never was protecting poor people from exploding meth labs. The DEA was trying to reduce meth consumption by restricting the supply.

Yes, supply side economics. When WILL that be discredited finally and for good/

You snipped this part of my reply last time, which I'll take as a concession, but if I say "policy X was stupid because it made the situation it was trying to address worse", and you reply "policy X had good secondary effects (that are entirely local)", that doesn't make it a good fucking policy.

No, but it doesn't erase the postive effects, either.

That's why first worlders turn a blind eye to what is essentially slave labor int he third world - it makes bad situations worse, but the localized benefit to the first worlders makes them so happy they continue the practice. YOU might think the those laws totally sucked, but are you actually that clueless why communities hat HAVE benefited in some ways from an otherwise bad policy might still be favor of it?

Oh yeah, incidentally: the best part about all this is that the policy doesn't seem to be working to accomplish its secondary goal, at least not in the long term. Check this shit out. After a sharp drop from 2004 to 2007, the number of meth lab "incidents" rose 54% in three years. There are, of course, other possible explanations for the rise (stricter enforcement, a change in reporting guidelines, etc.), but even by your standards, you can't begin to characterize the DEA's policy as a success.

Short term there WAS a significant drop in meth labs. So, short term, yes, it was a success on that secondary goal. Of course, even back in what, 2004, there were predictions that alternate supply lines and/or cooking processes would be found, is it so shocking through predictions bore fruit?

Personally - and I have stated this MANY times on this forum - my preference is for treating addicts to, hopefully, reduce demand and mitigate the social damage of drug abuse. On the other hand, as I said, I'm happier that less shit is blowing up in my neighborhood.

(I notice you did find this map, but for some reason, you tried to use it to bolster your argument instead of stuffing it away somewhere and hoping I didn't find it)

What? I provided links. I didn't hide anything.

What are you proposing? That the US simply ignore the death toll from amateur chemical factories in its own cities in order to save lives in Mexico? That we simply accept the deaths and maiming of thousands in the US and attempt nothing whatsoever? Well, I suppose an argument could be made for the US invading Mexico to take on the drug cartels...except, of course, such international interventionism is considered a Bad Thing these days as well. And, based on historical examples, unlikely to be terribly effective in the medium and long terms.

It is no more acceptable for Americans to die in the drug wars than for Mexicans to do so, and vice versa. Do you have a proposal that would reduce the problem on BOTH sides of the border simultaneously?

My proposal is to legalize recreational drugs and has been for at least the last ten years.

I'm on board with that. I've even stated so in past threads on the subject. I fully support my current employer's policy in regards to drugs, which is that they don't care what the fuck you do on your own time and property so long as you come to work clean and sober and stay that way while at work. Largely for safety reasons, as drugs and powered machinery are not a good mix. Hell, I worked for years at a treatment clinic and I am even more in favor of treatment than incarceration than I ever was.

Failing that, I would probably say it's better to deal with the collateral damage from domestic meth production than to enrich the fucking cartels which are tearing Mexico apart and funneling practically all the other goddamn drugs into this country.

Easy for YOU to say, as statistically you are far less likely to be part of the collateral damage than I am. I am reasonably sure you have never been driving down a local freeway and had the goddamn car in the next lane fucking EXPLODE - I have. I've seen the barriers around homes in my area where meth labs have been found, seen the hazmat teams rope off an area near a grocery store because some lab decided to dump their toxic waste in the bushes nearby. I've had neighbors carried off in body bags because of this shit. Why does it amaze you that I don't want this to come back?

It is so fucking easy to "tolerate" collateral damage when YOU are safe from it, isn't it?

I am, of course, aware of other damage done by drug cartels. Hell, one of the local communities have five sheriff deputies put away for gun running to the cartels last year. On the other hand, that was unrelated to meth, or even drug use, that was just plain greed on their part. I don't wish this on anyone, anywhere. On the other hand, I'm not willing to volunteer for "collateral damage" status either.