It wasn’t exactly a scene out of Breaking Bad.
Authorities say the two men suspected of making methamphetamine in a commercial warehouse in Hoonah were cooking meth in plastic soda bottles.
It is what law enforcement refers to as a “one-pot” lab, and is also known in popular culture as “Shake & Bake” labs.
“One-pot is a nickname because basically the chemical reaction is all done within the one pot,” explained Sgt. Chris Russell, a member of the drug task force that processed the meth lab at Hoonah Cold Storage last week. “It’s contained to a one pot. It doesn’t have to be in one bottle here, another bottle there or here — it’s all contained in the one pot.”
Usually, 2-liter soda bottles are used, Russell said. But in this case, the suspects used three different 16-ounce soda bottles.
The drugs were in an active chemical reaction stage when police arrived on scene, according to charging documents. An affidavit states police obtained permission to enter and search the warehouse from Jim Voller, the person responsible for the warehouse, after receiving a tip.
Police located two men inside and arrested them on suspicion of drug misconduct at about 6:45 p.m. last Wednesday. The Alaska Bureau of Investigation, which oversees the statewide drug enforcement unit, identified them as Gary Chamblin, 49, of Hoonah, and David B. Pierce, 36, of Oregon.
A police affidavit indicates Chamblin admitted to police in a later interview that he and Pierce were in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine when police entered the warehouse.
Pierce was the person actually completing the process, while Chamblin admitted he supplied the pseudo ephedrine to make the meth, the affidavit alleges.
The Southeast Alaska Cities Against Drugs (SEACAD) task force processed the lab since they are certified to process and investigate clandestine laboratories, or what they call “clan labs”, Russell said.
Russell, who served as the site safety officer, said SEACAD members in safety gear and HAZMAT suits carefully removed items for evidence for about four hours. What wasn’t submitted to the crime lab was destroyed by a company approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Drug Enforcement Administration coordinates the clean up, Russell said.
Among the materials SEACAD seized as evidence were pseudo ephedrine pills (which were ground in a coffee grinder to be mixed into the one-pot), lithium batteries, bottles of lye, kerosene, and glassware, such as test tubes.
“Some of the glassware was laboratory grade glassware that you would see like in a college science room,” Russell said in a recent phone interview.
It is not know how long the lab has been in operation, or how much methamphetamine it had produced. Russell estimates that with the operation that police interrupted could have probably yielded “a few grams” in each bottle.
The soda bottle one-pot method may not be technologically advanced, but Russell says it actually still poses a huge risk to the public because of its potential to combust if its gases are exposed to water, or even moisture in the air, Russell said.
“The dangers of the one-pot is the combustibility of it, and the danger is too, unfortunately, sometimes people that use the one-pot to manufacture meth, they’re obviously not disposing of it properly,” Russell said. “Sometimes they’ll leave it there, sometimes they’ll throw it in a ditch, sometimes they’ll throw it in the woods, and the danger is to the public.”
He added, “To manufacture meth, you don’t need to have a huge building dedicated to it, like a factory line or something. All you need is a bottle, which would be easy to conceal.”
Chamblin and Pierce are each charged with one count of second-degree drug misconduct for being in possession of methamphetamine precursors and listed chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. That’s a class ‘A’ felony that can be punishable by up to 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, or both.
They are being held in custody in lieu of $50,000 and are scheduled to appear in court for a preliminary hearing on Friday afternoon. That hearing will be vacated if an indictment is issued before then.
• Contact reporter Emily Russo Miller at 523-2263 or at emily.miller@juneauempire.com.
Comments (39)
Add comment"a few grams"
What's the going price per gram in Southeast? $200? $250? That makes meth three or four times as valuable as gold.
I'm glad they busted these scumbags, but given the huge profits and the low startup costs, I just don't see how you can eradicate it from the supplier end.
This requires intensive education at the user end. People need to understand that screwing around with highly addictive drugs like meth or opiates is a one-way ticket to misery. Classrooms and treatment are a lot cheaper than prison cells.
Shake N' Bake
Not the Shake N' Bake I grew up with. Doesn't matter to me how small or large the volume, throw the book at these guys.
As far as users go, I wish everyone who was about to take their first hit of meth, could see a picture of a long time meth user, before and after. Particularly their smile after long time use. It might just deter someone from entering that world. Sometimes it feels like a losing battle for society, or an extremely uphill battle at the very least.
The empire did all but give
The empire did all but give the exact amounts added. Come on Empire, do we really need to give out a detailed recipe in the article?
recipe for meth
PLEASE be more responsible for the things you report. It is totally unnecessary to give so much information to the public. We have enough problems with drugs without you giving out information on how to make cheap drugs!
legalize it
and stop putting society in danger from those who wish to obtain this stuff. By the way, the recipes are published all over the internet and the ingredients are readily available. It's becoming increasingly ridiculous that we try to prevent people from cooking this stuff up on their own when all the necessary ingredients and directions to do so are available anywhere one wishes to seriously look.
Meth houses are condemned all across the nation and still we look at eachother dumbfounded... what's the simple definition of insanity again? Trying the same thing over and over while expecting different results? I'd say this falls under the definition of stupid as well. Society is not reasonable on drugs, and then we wonder why the nonsense has failed to work... gee... it's so weird. Repeat mistake number one, and still the same things keep happening? I'm astonished...
Legalize it all. Take the billions we save on drug enforcement, criminal prosecution, correctional facilty space, drug-tax and lost tax-revenue on non-violent drug users locked up and spend it on education and rehab. Then take the hundreds of billions saved beyond that and apply it to domestic issues outside of drug use. Win win. If you want to use, you can. You can buy the drugs legally. Before you try to suggest that usage will rise, let me ask you one thing:
If meth were legal today, would you immediately go out and use it? I know I wouldn't. I don't expect others to either. Policing everyone else and protecting us from ourselves is wasted resources that could be better spent encouraging productive behavior instead of deterring non-productive behavior. Oh ya, and drug dealers like these scum bags cooking the stuff up will disappear entirely.
cheeesypoof
have you gone around the Bend? meth users dont have reputations for responsible decisions. What's to stop a tweeker from building his dream lab next door? They also arent the most reliable citizens. It's an invitation to get wacked and on the Dole.
Catch a clue, Grendel
Cheesy's got a point. Since when are tweakers known for rational decisions now, even with meth illegal?
Anyone stoned on meth is irrational and stupid. But now add to that being broke, hopelessly addicted, and desperate for money. That's a truly dangerous meth-head.
Meth is cheap and easy to manufacture, which is why even morons can make it in plastic soda bottles. A proper commercial lab could probably make it for about the same cost as aspirin. So instead of $200 per gram, it would be about $2 per gram. The profit would be out of it and no one would waste time cooking it if they could buy it from a government dispensary.
Thus the crime would largely disappear, at least on the manufacturing, trafficking, and sales of it. And the meth heads could afford it so they wouldn't need to break into your boat or car to finance their habit.
Now focus all of those resources we were previously wasting on enforcement and incarceration on education and treatment.
There will always be idiots who want to damage themselves with destructive drugs. I could probably convince a few fools to snort Drano. That's the price of living in a narcissistic culture. Why does a 'conservative' such as yourself want the government to be outlawing stupidity?
my friend Lat58
this is METH, genius. (I cant stop laughing) There is no FDA approval route for warfarin & drano quality controlled meth production. That means you cook it yourself. How reckless is that?? I'm not talking about the heads -- I'm talking about the kind of people that think letting meth heads cook their own junk is a good idea.
"Oh, but we'll make sure there are standards in place for a safe meth lab." for chissakes...
And your solution is...?
Please, bring it on, Einstein. Would be fascinated to hear your enlightened approach.
"Execute them all" is the predictable response...and that's coming from someone who's stymied by a few FDA regs, notwithstanding that pesky Constitution demanding due process and all those annoying rights for convicted criminals.
Also...don't post after you've been drinking. Your coherency suffers.
Lat58
you're a piece of work. You mention intensive education this morning, and then talk yourself into legalizing the junk. By the end of the night you'll be advocating the govt manufacture & distribution. The best part is your imaginary argument with me. You have cats, dont you?
My solution is realignment of the felony classifications, and a Class A Felony means 20 yrs, not up to 20 yrs. Because at that point you are a threat to society
Gren
You don't read so well, do you? Start over at square one. You can use your ESL as an excuse, it's OK.
So your solution is to build more prisons then. Many, many more prisons. And of course, pay fewer taxes (did you pay any federal taxes last year?).
Got it. Next!
to lat58
I dont have a problem with sending a convicted meth manufacturer & dealer to 20. I should not have to explain why 20 is justice, but I will.
It will take at least 20 yrs to recover from damage done to his victims. One generation.
It's not a social problem, Lat58. Problems can be managed, even regulated. It's a scourge, and those need to be eradicated.
I got nothing to add, so no "next" for me.
Ah
So you DIDN'T pay taxes last year. Figured as much.
look it up
yob ty, izdukh
Lat/Chessy, The problem with
Lat/Chessy,
The problem with legalizing extremely addictive substances is that you increase the accessibility of those substances. If it is legal then it is easy to get, then young people or people just wanting to experiment could get meth very easily. Then before you know it they are addicted and must now get that very big monkey off their back. Meth makes cigarettes look like soda pop.
Should we be able to buy oxycontin at Safeway or cocaine at the Breeze Inn?
users are not victims,
they are users. The only way people can justify sending drug dealers to prison is to label the user as a victim. Otherwise drug dealing is a victimless crime, which it actually is. Users are victims, according to who? They make the decision to use on their own. If the dealer puts a gun to their head and says "take this" then we have a victim. Until then, users are not victims. It's just a cop out move people who can't justify prison sentences for druggies use.
And another thing, if these users are victims, why are we putting them in jail?
noroad,
The problem with keeping drugs illegal is that the extremely addictive substances are going to be used regardless, and the black market WE as society created, provides a harmonious environment between sociopathic criminals and non-violent users. The users will never disappear, and if you want to keep trying the same tired useless tactics that haven't worked in the past, then go ahead and play the "I'm dumb" game and forget all about the articles you read everyday like this one.
Legal drugs do not incentivize usage. Take alcohol for instance. Alcohol is much harder for a teenager to obtain than say marijuana or heroin. The illicit drugs in America have a glamorous side to them as well. They show up in movies and dealers tend to have gold wrist watches and diamond escalades. There's money in illicit drugs. And people like you are the reason drug dealers exist. People who continue to support illicit drugs in fact create the violent environment that leads to drug mules in America, teenagers being introduced to hard drugs, and innocent civilians getting caught in the crossfire between law enforcement and cartels.
They keep the blinders on. I hope they enjoy reading articles like this one about meth kitchens. Or catastrophic meth lab explosions. Or worse... keep those blinders on, so their kids have a compounded problem to deal with in 15 years. Hopefully they'll have the same blinder skills and no one will have to think about this problem. Yay!
Grendel,
meth exists and is heavily marketed mainly because it's easy to cook up. Legitimate forms of methamphetamine are available as perscription. The illigitamate forms on the street exist because the legit form is harder to come by.
It's ironic that people like you want to abolish drug usage, and here you are, supporting the most unhealthy kind of usage the planet has ever seen. You, and others like you, are more to blame for this meth lab than the people actually cooking it up. The meth dealers are victims of the environment created by you. Afterall, users are victims of the dealers, right? Well, dealers wouldn't exist if it weren't for willfully ignorant people. If you wish to be willfully ignorant, please, attempt to do so on your own personal time. Keep drugs illegal is not serving the supposed purpose. Time to try something new.
Take bath salts, for instance. These drugs are created in a lab similar to perscription drugs, however, without all the regulations. These drugs burst on the scene for a while as a legal substance. They are not marketed as drugs, so they are legal. Once they catch on, local law enforcement finds out, and they become illegal. A few months later the chemists create a new, similar substance, and we repeat the process all over again. Those who support illicit drug use are contributing to the black market because you created it. A black market only exists because laws on the books create the environment. Controlling human nature, and policing everyone else is pathetic. It's time to cut your losses and admit you are dead wrong on this matter.
noroad
You make a good point. Price is certainly one barrier to meth usage. So is illegality. But clearly price and illegality are not very effective, because we have lots of meth addicts.
The problem with making it illegal, and thus making the price high, is that it then spawns all of those other negative things such as desperate addicts breaking into your house or mugging your wife in an attempt to finance their $500/day habit. And the meth labs endangering neighborhoods with toxic waste and explosive gasses. And drug trafficking gangsters bring in violence and corruption. And then the massive amounts of tax money we spend on enforcement and courts and prisons.
I'm not proposing making meth available at the Breeze In. It needs to be controlled. You need a prescription to gain access to it, and that prescription also requires that you attend classes and treatment for it. And you don't go to prison for it unless you violate other laws.
Sure, there'll still be a black market for it, but the price will be much lower, and thus the profit and accompanying crime will be lower too.
Take a fraction of the money we currently spend on meth enforcement and prisons and apply it towards drugs education and intervention. Every kid will have it drilled into them what the consequences of meth addiction are. And because the current meth addicts will be getting theirs from a clinic, under the oversight of a doctor, it will seem more like an illness than something exotic. The allure will fade.
And as PP says, if after all of that education, they still elect to go get addicted, well that's a choice they made. They're users at that point. I just don't want to be a victim of their choice when they steal my car.
Mine's not a perfect solution. But I'll take it over the status quo.
@cheesypoof: the problem is
@cheesypoof: the problem is that many people are more interested in retribution than solving problems. They'd rather lock drug dealers/users up than give them help or legalize drugs, not because they truly believe it will solve the world's drug problems (to do so would require a profound lack of logical ability and a short-term memory), but because it makes them feel better to see people they perceive as "bad" being punished.
It's a spectacle. These people have no compassion for those they don't know personally, and they're only interested in fulfilling their desire to see something bad happen to someone bad.
The worst part is how self-righteous these types are. They always justify their restrictive policies by saying that making such things legal will increase their use, because apparently humans are base, corrupt, ignorant human beings. But of course the paragons of virtue who advocate these policies would never stoop so low as to try meth just because it were legal. They're just looking to protect their inferiors from themselves, right?
cp
"You, and others like you, are more to blame for this meth lab than the people actually cooking it up." Really??
you're in too deep, or you're too close; or you're using. Get help -- aside from other soft-headed sympathizers. They are enabling you.
not victims?
are you suggesting that the under-18 crowd are not victims? That's a break from most, if not all, punitive codes in the books. That is bold, almost a bent over and grasp ankles justification.
you should stop now
grendel,
users are not victims. Users have never fallen under the definition of victim and if you want to discuss the issue of minors using, well, you'll lose again. Minors have a far easier time obtaining illicit drugs as opposed to legal, regulated substances. If you want to classify minors using drugs as victims, then you as a contributor to this ease of access are the offender.
And just because you can't win the argument doesn't mean I'm a drug user. You continue to defend a position on drugs that is not only failing, it's created a problem far worse than a few drug dealers and users. We have drug cartels with more man-power and fire-power than the Mexican Military we use as pawns to combat them. And you still want to paint reasonable views on this matter as under the influence of drugs. Just to point out your obvious shortcomings, I suggest you go back and re-read all your posts on this board. Talk about getting bogged down in sheer ignorance.
But I wouldn't expect much more from you, grendel. When you are losing you usually resort to character attacks. Like since you can't argue with me, I must be a drug user. That's reasonable... you're pathetic.
drug users are victims
as much as the hamburgler is. The only reason drug users are referred to as victims is because society has qualified certain substances as being illegal, off-limits. Heroin has more health benefits than a quarter-pounder, yet here we are qualifying one substance abuser a victim, while the other is just hungry.
Makes sense... in a silly, nonsense sort of way.
It's interesting that heroin has medical benefits, and it's illegal unless perscribed. Same with marijuana, cocaine, even meth. Who's really a victim here? Society, being told a medical benefit is off-limits because you have to obtain the substance through a pharmacy? Because pharmaceuticals, with the same chemical makeup, are ok, but substances that haven't been patented, or can't be, are off-limits. Marijuana can't be patented... it's a naturally growing plant, yet it has medical benefits. It's essentially government patented through regulation by government organizations like the DEA.
It is far more complicated than protectin citizens from themselves, however, the foolish have been duped into believing that's what the war on drugs is accomplishing.
Eh, I would characterize drug
Eh, I would characterize drug addicts as victims. Many people who turn to drugs do so because they live in really abhorrent conditions, or have other problems (mental illness, emotional issues, etc.). As with most of our social issues, if we could eliminate poverty, drug use would cease to be a problem.
I still like you, cp, but you need help here --
1. legitimate methampethamine for prescriptive use? But then in the same breath you say that if you cant get a script, then you are forced to go to street, and then
2. "time to try something new," which of course means just legalizing the whole thing because it's going to happen anyway, and we shouldnt be filling our prisons up with helpless drug users.
Sound about right?
1. Scripts are given for real ailments. Why is methadone by prescription only? To keep addicts OFF heroin because heroin is bad for you and shooting up is socially unacceptable.
2. Do you really think meth problem will go away if it is legalized? Alcoholism did not go away under Prohibition, nor did it subside after Repeal. It is, however, a recognized disability. Maybe you want tweekers to have recognized disabilities? I'd rather the stigma force them into rehab, and if that fails, forced rehab (detox behind bars), because if that fails they are of no use to you, me, or anyone.
this notion that legalized meth is a solution is indicative of a broader tolerance for aberrant behaviour. And if you think that a minor (whom you will agree is still in a developmental stage) is not a victim, then you have a loose criteria for responsibility. Loose criteria is a gentle way of saying "addled," but I dont want you to think I am attacking you personally. It is inconsistent to say, "yeah, kids should be able to ride on their parent's health insurance till they are 26;" or, "yeah, a sixteen yr girl should be able to have abortion without parents' knowledge, because she's just a little girl (read: too stupid to know better);" and then claim that 16 yr meth head is not a victim.
But I dont know you, cheeesypoof, so character attack is ridiculous. Idea attack is better assessment. Your ideas, notions, are not well thought out. They lack vision of consequences.
PP
I don't agree that drug use is only brought about by poverty. If that were true then who the heck is buying $10,000 bottles of scotch? Generally speaking, drug use of some sort has been around as long as man, and it's been abused by both the elite and non alike.
Elminating poverty would only eliminate the cheap substances. The expensive substances will still have the demand and if they're illegal, the market simply goes underground.
Illegal markets often times create the cheap substances, like street meth, or bath salts. If there is a demand, though, no amount of regulation will prevent it. In the case of drug usage, which is a victimless crime under US law, society is only protecting the user from him or herself. Without a victim we must create one in order to justify prison sentences. Alcoholics are as much victims as meth addicts. It's the outcome of abusing a substance, but it still was caused by a personal decision made consciously by the user.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with addicts and I think society should provide the services necessary to rehab these inviduals. That being said, you can't rehab someone unless they make the choice themself. It doesn't work to forcibly rehabilitate someone. The choice is still theirs and if they don't choose to stop you can't make them. Prison is no place to rehabilitate a non-violent user or even dealer. Prison is a place for criminals and drug laws are creating criminals out of people who aren't.
@Grendel: alcoholism didn't
@Grendel: alcoholism didn't subside with the repeal of prohibition, but bootlegging did. And the jailing of those who drink. And the waste of money spent on enforcing such laws.
You undermined your own point. By this admission, meth heads will exist whether or not meth is legal. But all the problems caused by meth BEYOND the addiction itself are a DIRECT RESULT of criminalization.
@cheesypoof: drug addiction
@cheesypoof: drug addiction isn't ONLY brought about by poverty, but by and large, drug addicts come from poverty and live in poverty. I don't think alcohol is a good comparison, either, since scotch-drinkers typically aren't alcoholics, and alcohol has been a part of human culture for tens of thousands of years.
Eliminate poverty, and you eliminate the bulk of drug-related issues. There'll still be the rock star who overdoses on cocaine, or the painkiller addicted radio personality, but they aren't stealing to support their habits.
@pp
1. meth heads will exist whether or not meth is legal. True
2. But all the problems caused by meth BEYOND the addiction itself are a DIRECT RESULT of criminalization. False
broken lives, broken families, costs to others -- not result of criminalization. Meth heads will still do anti-social things, like stealing and holing up with useless lives, whether legal or not. "PLEASE USE METH RESPONSIBLY" will never be a slogan. Reread my point under (2.) -- alcohol-ism, not alcohol itself. You diverted the argument to counter an assertion I did not make.
@Grendel: incorrect.
@Grendel: incorrect. Legalization means that users aren't buying from street dealers, are not supporting cartels, and are not paying an arm and a leg for the product. Alcoholics and chain smokers don't steal to support their habits, and that's because cigarettes and alcohol are much cheaper than illicit drugs.
As for the direct results of the addiction--broken homes and such--do you honestly think people won't be more willing to get help if they aren't committing a crime? Or their families won't be more willing to find help?
Why don't you stop thinking in purely either/or terms? You have no solutions yourself, other than perpetuating a system that has never worked, but don't seem to be open to any other solutions unless they can fix, 100%, the problem, which is a naive expectation, to say the least.