METH IS TAKING A TOLL ON USERS -- AND ON US!

I may be just like you. I was probably as shocked as you when I
learned Harvey County, like the rest of the state, has a problem with
methamphetamine.

It's all over the place.

You've seen some different images and have read some
out-of-the-ordinary stories on the pages of the Kansan the past few
Saturdays.

Our intent wasn't to disturb you just for the sake of disturbing you
with our series on methamphetamine. We wanted to show you what's
happening around us.

Remember, I live in Harvey County, too. I'm not immune.

I have kids who in a few years will be teen-agers, who will soon
enough be introduced to some of the things parents try to keep out of
their sight.

So, we can shake the water off our hands, grab a towel and try to
convince ourselves it isn't our problem.

But it is.

Meth takes a toll on more than users. Sure, it ruins their lives. But
it also wrecks the lives of many others.

We're all paying for its proliferation in one way or another. Think
about it the next time you drive over a highway pothole. The money
that could be used to update our highways may be going to hire another
batch of scientists to investigate meth labs.

How about the time you wait for police to respond to that incessantly
barking dog next door? Maybe the cops are out busting an addict or
knocking down the door of a suspected meth-maker.

So, we throw money at the problem. The Kansas Legislature is being
asked by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to boost investigation
initiatives -- to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The KBI wants to hire additional chemists. It wants to reconstruct
some space in a KBI lab in Great Bend to handle all the evidence in
meth investigations. It wants more equipment.

Do we give the KBI more money?

I think we have to. The state has committed time and energy -- not to
mention millions of dollars -- to cracking down on the increasing
problem of meth production. Kansas is third behind Missouri and
California in the amount of meth being produced.

Busts have gone through the roof. And the time it takes the KBI to
conclusively show meth was being produced -- with evidence collected
from homemade beakers, jugs and jars -- is growing with the numbers.

Local prosecutors, meanwhile, have been forced to "kick" suspects out
of jail before they get to trial. They can't get evidence back from
the KBI labs fast enough.

Yes, prosecutors and the KBI need our help.

I'm not sure how possible it is, but maybe we should drop some of the
stringent burden of proof standards.

My wife always says, "If it has leaves, a trunk and limbs, call it a
tree."

Would that argument stand up in court? Probably not. We're told by
prosecutors that convincing a jury methamphetamine was being made is a
difficult task. They ask for a lot. They want proof.

So, prosecutors must show the process at each step. Chemical A was
added to solution B and reaction C occurred.

But if chemical A wasn't added and solution B contained liquid D, does
that mean meth wasn't being made?

Does it have to be that difficult? Maybe we should rethink what we're
requiring our prosecutors to prove.

I understand that suspects have rights. And I in no way want those
compromised. What we need is a swifter form of justice.

We can bust all the meth labs we want. We can throw all of the
suspects we find behind bars. But we can't really punish these people
if our prosecutor's hands are tied.

Let's loosen the knot a bit, and not just the ones in our purse
strings.