DRUG MANUFACTURING LAW MUST BE MORE SPECIFIC

Law enforcement got somewhat of a boost last week when an appellate court
ruled that a person has no right to posses chemicals or equipment --
otherwise legal products -- if the intent is to use them to make an illegal
substance.

But the process itself, not to mention the wording of the court's ruling,
should concern legislators to the point that addressing the state's
manufacturing methamphetamine statute should be a top priority when the
General Assembly convenes in January.

Questions arose when a Caldwell County circuit judge ruled a portion of the
state's manufacturing methamphetamine law unconstitutional, because he
considered it too vague.

The section in question allows law enforcement to charge an individual with
manufacturing methamphetamine -- a Class B felony punishable by 10 to 20
years in prison -- if that person is found to be in possession of
components for a meth lab. This includes legal items such as Sudafed,
lithium batteries and drain cleaner.

The appellate court, in a ruling written by Judge Paul Gudgel, found the
law to meet constitutional standards but agreed the law is so vague that it
cannot be enforced.

The ruling will have major ramifications for Daviess County and much of
western Kentucky. Since the law was strengthened in 1998, law enforcement
has used the possession provision as one of its most effective ways to
combat the spread of methamphetamine.

And despite fears that innocent people would be charged for having legal
products, there has been little, if any, evidence to believe law
enforcement has abused the provision.

The making of meth, particularly in this area, is a clandestine process.
Only rarely does law enforcement come upon an active lab where
methamphetamine is actually being produced. That's why it's so important
that the possession provision be preserved.

Consider the largest meth stockpile believed to have ever found in
Kentucky. In February, detectives from the Daviess County Sheriff's
Department found 300 gallons of anhydrous ammonia, about 275,000
pseudoephedrine pills, thousands of lithium batteries and 40 cases of
ether-based starting fluid in a storage unit. But there was no meth
actually being made.

In order to shut down these one-stop shops for meth ingredients, law
enforcement needs the ability to wave the heavy stick of the manufacturing law.

There has been talk that legislators will introduce a bill that would limit
the availability of the ingredients used to make meth. While that may be an
option at some point, first lawmakers should focus on those who already
have the products and plan to use them for illegal activities.

Judges are essentially saying that current law should be made more
specific, outlining how much of these legal products must be possessed in
order to prove intent to manufacture.

If legislators don't listen, the struggle to rid the region of
methamphetamine is only going to get tougher.