Internet 'cookbook' fuels drug wars

AS a special murder task force investigates the bloody amphetamines drug war erupting in Victoria, police around the country have uncovered dozens of clandestine laboratories and copies of an illegal "cookbook" on how to make the illicit drugs.

It is believed the recent murders in Melbourne are linked to drug wars that are being fuelled by the availability of internet recipes and a manual called Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture, written by an underground chemist known as "Uncle Fester". The 183-page book, available on the internet, tells how to set up backyard kitchens right through to large-scale productions rivalling the traditional crime syndicate operations.

A special police task force has been set up to look at the murders of Melbourne's underworld figures - 16 in five years - and the underground amphetamines trade.

One of the leads being pursued by Victorian homicide investigators is the battle for control of the cut-throat amphetamines market.

Authorities are also concerned about would-be chemists swapping recipes for illicit drugs in internet chat rooms.

A spokesman for federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison said the Government knew of the Uncle Fester manual and warned possession of it was an offence in some states. The Government, he said, was reviewing internet use for "promoting criminal offences".

Detective Inspector Paul Willingham, a chemical operations manager in the NSW drug squad, warned that apart from the bloodshed in Melbourne, there were many other dangerous spin-offs to underground manufacturing.

"The dangers of the hazardous waste and the potential injuries ... are immense. Just last week ... chemists using pseudoephedrine tablets along with flammable solvents blew the roof right off a flat."

Uncle Fester's book, which has been found in most Australian states, is one of at least four illegal publications police have stumbled across. While it tells readers the book is not for criminal use, it gives tips on how not to get busted and to keep ahead of the "narco swine". It also has detailed instructions on how to make drugs including amphetamines, methamphetamines, Ice and Ecstasy.

Amphetamine labs are a growing problem around the country, with West Australian police reporting a 35 per cent increase this year on the number of labs found. Victorian police were unable to answer questions about the amphetamine market in that state. But the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission tabled a report last week revealing amphetamines were still the biggest drug threat, with 162 labs found last year.

In NSW in the past 18 months, 72 clandestine labs have been unearthed. Gang task force officers smashed a criminal network linked to the Nomads outlaw motorcycle gang resulting in 51 arrests, 304 charges and the discovery of seven drug labs. One man was charged with manufacturing amphetamines worth about $49 million.

I recently came across this as an answer to a legal question about "Drug conspiracy" in the USA- perhaps this is what makes Uncle Fester illegal in Australia. If this is correct, then these books are probably illegal here too.

The original article mentions Internet and books and publicatins as part of the problem- could they possibly be hinting that restricting these communications channels would alleviate the problem?

Cutandpaste text follows:

Unfortunately the current US federal controlled substances laws are a kafkaesque nightmare. There is something which is often referred to as "the drug exception to the Constitution" or "the drug exception to common sense". In this case, there is a "drug exception" to the normal requirements for a conspiracy conviction.

Under US federal law, most conspiracy crimes require both an agreement between two or more people and some sort of action intended to work towards completing the plan by any of the people involved with the plan. For instance the law banning "Conspiracy to commit an offense or defraud the United States" (18 U.S.C. § 371) states that it is a crime:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy...

And this is what is commonly thought of as the requirements for a conspiracy conviction.

However, in the case of crimes involving controlled substances, the law is different and removes the "any act to effect the object" language: (21 U.S.C. § 846)

Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

This makes simply talking about committing a drug crime (for instance talking about buying cannabis or talking about growing cannabis) potentially criminal. Although it is important to note that a prosecutor has to prove that an actual conspiracy or "agreement" had taken place, if two people agree to possess/distribute/manufacture a controlled substance, then they are guilty under this statute. The implication that the individual is as guilty and punishable for talking about buying cannabis as they are for actually buying it can certainly seem chilling.

The immediate reaction of most who hear this is disbelief. A typical response might be "That can't be Constitutional, I have a right to talk about whatever I want to talk about so long as I don't actually do anything else."

But, unfortunately, there have been several challenges to this law and the Supreme Court of the United states ruled unanimously in 1994 in the case United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) that the federal law was enforceable as it was written. A lower court, the more civil-rights-oriented US Ninth Circuit of the West Coast, had ruled that there had to be some actual activity beyond talking before a felony had been committed.

Justice O'Connor, writing for the unanimous Supreme Court stated it very clearly:

What the Ninth Circuit failed to recognize we now make explicit: In order to establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. ( US vs Shabani, 1994 http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-981.ZS.html )

The following are additional references to cases where the law was challenged in a number of ways: "void for vagueness" (laws in the US can be invalid if they are very vague about exactly what action would be criminal, although this protection has largely been eliminated by Supreme Court decisions), right to freedom of speech, right to assemble and associate, and protections against criminalizing status. All constitutional challenges have so far failed.

U.S. v. Pulido, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1995, 69 F.3d 192 : Found that the drug conspiracy statute did not violate the First Amendment's protection of speech and thought because criminal agreement itself is an action (actus reus).

U. S. v. Cooper, C.A.5 (La.) 1979, 606 F.2d 96, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct. 685, 444 U.S. 1024, 62 L.Ed.2d 657: Found that the section in question did not place impermissible restrictions on freedoms of association and expression under the First Amendment.

U. S. v. Cooper, C.A.5 (La.) 1979, 606 F.2d 96, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct. 685, 444 U.S. 1024, 62 L.Ed.2d 657 : Found that the law provided adequate notice under common law that any agreement to purchase and distribute totally prohibited substances such as heroin would be a violation of the law and does not violate the Fifth Amendment's requirement of due process.

U. S. v. Hayes, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1979, 595 F.2d 258, rehearing denied 598 F.2d 620, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct. 138, 444 U.S. 866, 62 L.Ed.2d 89 : Found that the law was not unconstritutionally vague and convicted a pharmacist of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.

U. S. v. Umentum, E.D.Wis.1975, 401 F.Supp. 746, affirmed 547 F.2d 987, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1677, 430 U.S. 983, 52 L.Ed.2d 376 : Found that this law did not violate the First Amendment. It also denied the theory that this law could violate the protection against 'crimes of status' which protects individuals from being prosecuted for simply being an alcoholic or a drug addict. This law requires the act of agreement or planning and thus does not punish for status alone.

U. S. v. Amidzich, E.D.Wis.1975, 396 F.Supp. 1140: Found that this law does not impermissibly infringe on the First Amendment's protection of collective conversation.

U. S. v. Sanchez, N.D.Tex.1973, 380 F.Supp. 1260, affirmed 508 F.2d 388, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 45, 423 U.S. 827, 46 L.Ed.2d 44 : Also found the law constitutional and denied the defendent's challenge.

The main thing that concerns civil libertarians about this type of law is not that it, by itself, endangers the freedom of the people but that it is one of many laws which have been passed and found Constitutional which produce a society in which everyone is at constant risk of committing a felony. Idle conversations about going to the park and trying to buy cannabis, although they will never be prosecuted, could be technically illegal.

This law is one of many which brings into sharp relief the question of what constitutes criminal activity. Not only are there laws against consensual activities but laws which ban agreeing to engage in a consensual act as an adult. Should a democratic society allow such a broad definition of felonious action that it justifies universal surveillance (the panopticon)? What effects does it have on a society over the long term of creating a pervasive sense that arbitrary and disproportionate enforcement are the norm?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.