• Overcast
  • 46°
    Overcast
http://sealaska.com
  • Comment

Two held for allegedly cooking meth in Hoonah lab

Posted: October 18, 2012 - 12:11am

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.

  • Comment

Comments (39)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
cheeesypoof
1897
Points
cheeesypoof 10/19/12 - 01:13 pm
1
0

grendel,

you are assuming that those who support the legalization of drugs are assuming this will magically solve all problems associated with drug use. No one said that. This is something you fabricated on your own.

The legalization of drugs is intended to remove the illegal dealing associated with illicit drug use. Meth labs, meth dealers, and associated violence are the focus points. Going beyond meth, this removes the supplier, the middle men, and the violence associated with ALL illicit drugs.

Now in regard to the "broken lives, broken families, and costs to others" which agreed are not a result of the criminalization of drugs, can be focused on with the criminal factor removed from drugs themselves. Drug users are forced underground, which means the helpful services for drug users are not as accessible.

Legalizing drugs would have to be done in a responsible manner. This means that with the legalization comes regulation. Substance tax will help fund programs geared towards responsible behavior. Education on all fronts. Similar to cigarettes, we're seeing a stigma brought about within society that goes along with this unhealthy habit. We are all still free to choose on our own, but the information is out there and the glamour of cigarettes no longer exists.

Like I've said before, legal substances are more difficult to obtain than illegal substances for minors. Legalizing these substances means the sleazy dealer is no longer pushing products to young folks. The products are behind the counter and I would support a program that monitors usage. Someone who purchases a regulated substance like marijuana or cocaine would not qualify for government assistance. There would be no reward for usage but the savings on law enforcement, prison space, criminal prosecution, etc. would drop off a cliff. Obviously I don't support a legal free-for all because I think these substances would require the public understanding that the goverment does not condone the usage, but the government trusts society to act responsibly. That's a better signal than telling us we can't be trusted with decisions like this.

Grendel
1118
Points
Grendel 10/19/12 - 02:01 pm
0
2

pp & cp

I thought we were discussing meth. You both have opened this to application of all controlled substances. That is a generalization that extends beyond context of this forum.
It is not matter of either/or. You simply cannot treat class A felonies with same parameters as Schedule VIA possession. Now, what was the meth defense once again? I am slow, but you knew that already.

cheeesypoof
1897
Points
cheeesypoof 10/19/12 - 03:06 pm
1
0

grendel,

don't beat yourself up too bad. It helps to read the posts that you reply to. Here's an excerpt from my initial post on here which you replied to:

"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."

I don't know how you missed that, unless you simply did not read it. It's hard to reply without reading the post though. How do you expect to comment on this stuff without being aware what the topic is? Is this why I always have to repeat myself?

I really like your reply to my initial post, suggesting I'm off my rocker. You obviously didn't even read it prior to commenting on it. I find this funny.

Grendel
1118
Points
Grendel 10/19/12 - 03:23 pm
0
2

cp

when you specifically mention "meth," "meth houses," "cooking," "users," and "dealers" in the comment section of a story on "Two held for allegedly cooking meth" I made the huge leap that you were talking about METH. Can you cook heroin? How about pot? Cocaine is processed down in So America, isnt it? No one mentioned LSD anywhere, and no one but horse veterinarians administer PCP anymore.

If you were inclined to reread my comments you would find that they are either addressing meth or are addressing meth-related problems, such as addiction, behaviour, and the impact of meth. Easy assumptive leap for you, sure, but you are off your rocker if you think all controlled substances should be considered for legalization. That is nothing short of a reckless proposition.

cheeesypoof
1897
Points
cheeesypoof 10/19/12 - 04:44 pm
1
0

grendel,

again, it helps to read the posts and understand the topics before you comment specifically on them. This is the Juneau Empire message boards... not every comment is specific to the article.

As far as reckless goes, supporting a drug war that has killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to date certainly does qualify. I can't imagine trying to argue in support of one of the single most destructive domestic policies the US government has concocted since prohibition. Probably explains why you struggle to stay on topic. Best argument you have is probably your attempts at character assasination. Suggesting I'm a drug user is probably the closest you've come to winning the argument.

Obviously this argument is pretty good too:

"you are off your rocker if you think all controlled substances should be considered for legalization. That is nothing short of a reckless proposition."

Yes, strong argument you have there grendel. I can't possibly argue with this...

Grendel
1118
Points
Grendel 10/19/12 - 05:57 pm
0
1

a modest apology to my friend cp

We can agree that the War on Drugs is a failure. Let's call that the mean level for our gauge. You appear to be taking a position where you essentially throw out all distinctions of illegal drugs. Note, I did not say controlled, just illegal. That's at an extreme end of the meter. The other extreme being "execute all offenders," essentially amounting to zero tolerance.

I would advocate re-alignment of the penal code to concentrate on the offenders that are indeed dangers to society or are beyond accountability for their actions (irresponsible). This necessarily means, some illegal drugs remain illegal. Your response does not account for inherently dangerous behaviour. Mine recognizes the need to distinguish between responsible behaviour and disregard for one's actions. Meth use in no way, shape, or form can be tolerated as a responsible recreation, and no one can defend it as a negligible risk - to oneself or the public welfare.

You're right -- I should not have implied you are a user just because you advocate a free-style approach to the availability and means of acquiring dangerous narcotics and hallucinogens. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, cheeesypoof. You're just naive.

Latitude58
14464
Points
Latitude58 10/19/12 - 07:13 pm
0
0

And Grendel,

What evidence do you have that your proposed solution, harsher enforcement, would prove effective?

You have already stated that meth addicts are irrational creatures. Do you suddenly expect them to become rational due to sentencing reform?

I understand the argument that if they're locked away for 20 years they don't pose a threat to society, but it's pretty obvious that there's an endless well of new recruits to draw from, so it would appear that you're suggesting a massively expensive solution...which will not prove to be a solution in any event.

You chide CP on his failure to recognize the consequences of his proposition. Doctor, heal thyself. You would create these long mandatory sentences. The Feds/states won't be able to build enough prisons to accommodate the new incarcerates so they'll be forced to release other felons who likely should remain behind bars.

Your statement that meth addicts are 'useless to society' strikes me as rather autocratic. Who granted you license to pass such judgment? Perhaps the same can be claimed of alcoholics, developmentally disabled, elderly, and disabled citizens. I'll try to refrain from using the 'fascism' term...oops, there I went and did it.

I'm not sure what definition CP is using for 'legalization', but I would substitute it with 'decriminalization'. It should not be sold at Breeze Inn. But it also shouldn't cost users $200/oz and be accompanied by a 20-year prison sentence.

Make it cheap. Make education/treatment mandatory.

ChickenLittle
247
Points
ChickenLittle 10/19/12 - 09:50 pm
0
0

Failure?

Thank you for SEACAD in the HAZMAT suits, obviously an active chemical reaction is dangerous. Seeing a burned spoon, a needle, a modified burned pop can, a soda bottle, or a smell that can help us avoid a dangerous situation or persons is helpful.

Young people reading this, those drug sales people that seem nicer than your parents are using you. Find a different friend that smiles, encourages, and can be your support system, people that meet your financial needs without obligating you to do something you think is wrong, something that provides a way out that is less damaging than the existing methadone program that is already severely critisized. You have value, you are important.

The 1970's was the worst drug sales attack on me, and probably many others. Most people don't talk about it because they hide from the facts.

Fact: I write 1018 on my hand to keep myself from smoking cigarettes. Why? Cigarettes make me mean. I need to talk to my counselor, :D.

Grendel
1118
Points
Grendel 10/20/12 - 08:57 am
0
1

@Lat58

1. Good morning;

2. "Your statement that meth addicts are 'useless to society' strikes me as rather autocratic. Who granted you license to pass such judgment?"

The short answer is, "I did." Then I turned around and imposed my autocratic will on all you readers in this comment section. So beware! Fall in line! Dont you dare let me catch you tweeking, or...or...nevermind. Dont do meth, it makes you useless, broken, and no one will respect you.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376863/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/359852/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376858/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376853/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376843/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/368637/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376838/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376833/
Fire Academy Graduation

CONTACT US

  • Switchboard: 907-586-3740
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-586-3740
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-586-3028
  • Business Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-523-2270
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING