Drug factory found in retirement home

Reuters ^

[Jimmyclyde]

Drug factory found in retirement home

MESA, Arizona (Reuters) - In a quiet suburban Phoenix retirement enclave, the word "seizure" usually means an urgent trip to the hospital. On Friday, it meant a trip to jail. Armed with a search warrant, authorities swooped down on a suspected methamphetamine lab inside a home at Leisure World in Mesa, arresting 71-year-old resident Patrice Wentworth and her 44-year-old live-in boyfriend Michael Davino.

"It's something pretty different," Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told Reuters. "I don't remember coming up with a person of this age before in something like this."

Sheriff's investigators learned of the possible illegal operation inside this 6,000-person community from an informant, and moved in after a two-month undercover investigation, Arpaio said. Estimates are that the small lab could have made as much as two ounces at a time.

The white-haired Wentworth and her much younger companion sat in chairs in the street, separated by several vehicles, as authorities combed the residence for additional evidence.

Davino told Reuters that he was only doing research on the drug and was not planning to manufacture it. Wentworth denied any knowledge of the drug operation.

Sheriff's officials said the couple had been together for six years.

[LibertarianInExile]

All I said was that the old biddy probably had her lover hooked. That was humor. You people have your sphincters so tight you poop diamonds. Check your stool.

Sheriff Joe is a publicity fiend. It's common knowledge. If you don't believe that, lawdude, then you obviously ain't don't know a damn thing about Arizona. I've lived there. Joe is a good man, but he loves bein' on TV. I don't doubt these people were breaking the law, and I don't doubt they deserved to be busted for it.

That you want to parody people you don't agree with is fine, but turnabout is fair play, and it's pretty easy to parody lawdude and you, Radarboy. All I have to do is squawk 'What about the CHILDREN?!?!' a few dozen times, never mind that the SENIOR and her 44-year-old lover likely didn't have any kids around in Leisure World, where kids are probably against the covenants. I wouldn't be surprised if even being 44 years old in a house there is breaking a covenant, too. But I never intimated that anyone give kids any meth. Sure, Loverboy might have been selling it to kids. But who the hell knows from this article? Set up your straw man somewhere else, lawdude.

As usual, y'all are the first to assume that drugs and anything/anyone touching them are evil, wicked and nasty. Because we all know that what's legal can't be evil, while what's illegal must be. Sort of like civil rights in South Africa, or gun rights in Australia, they're illegal so they must be wrong. You don't believe it represents the total production because drugs are E-Vil. Icky-poo.

Illegalizing any THING causes more people to commit illegal acts in getting and keeping that now-valuable-because-it's-illegal THING. I'm not for legalizing anyone harming others, for example, your idea to give meth to kids, just like I'd never say you should set a cat on fire or drag a man behind a pickup because of his skin color. Evil acts have happened and will and should continue to be illegal because they are HARMING OTHERS.

But I have no idea what these people did to hurt anyone, and neither do you. So you're just yapping about what might happen if someone gives kids something kids shouldn't have. That's like banning guns because kids might find them, or the Mideast states banning the Bible, just because kids might get the book and convert.

I'm sure you'll respond with a diatribe about how they could have blown up the house with that meth lab and how the neighborhood was primed for a drive-by or something. Fire away, Carrie Nation.

[Under the Radar]

If Meth was legal, it wouldn't be produced in clandestine labs in neigborhood, ever.

It would be made by Glaxo, or some other huge multinational.

Of course, you are right. And the billions of dollars the multinationals would have to invest in R&D and insurance, and the big bucks they would charge for the end product, would never, ever, ever ever ever cause anyone to try to sell a cheaper version on the street...

[LibertarianInExile]

The major distillers and brewers put out a product from which 99.99999% of the market buys its alcoholic beverages. All that stuff should be illegal because someone makes elderberry wine in their basement, right?

The major tobacconists put out products from which 99.9999% of the market buys its cigarettes. All that stuff should be illegal--because a few people trade fresh smoked leaf with their neighborhood tobacco farmer!

You're saying that whether laws are in place or not, stuff's going to be sold illegally--so why would you want to keep that stuff illegal when Glaxo or ANY legal maker would certainly collect taxes for and have a serious quality control over what they produce, as well as a safety control over often dangerous production processes?

Because it's E-Vil. Bad, bad, bad.

[LibertarianInExile]

[remove 'ain't' second para]

[Under the Radar]

With all due respect, one reason why this argument doesn't have any "legs" is that it doesn't take into consideration the difference between classes of drugs. The fact that libertarians refuse to see gradations between drugs severely undermines their arguments. Yes, there is an extreme difference between tobacco and herion, or alchohol and methamphetamines, both in the way it is produced and the effect it has on the body. This reality, not surprisingly, would affect the way the market would deal with the drugs that are currently illegal were they to be made legal. Conservatives have plenty of principled, economic arguments against decriminalization. To say that that it is all blue-stocking "fear of fun" is deliberately disingenuous.

[Wolfie]

You make some very good points. On the other hand, the Conservative in charge of the Drug War, better known as the Drug Czar, has been running around the country saying that marijuana is more dangerous than heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. There are plenty of idiots to go around.

[LibertarianInExile]

With all due respect, the gradations are spurious. Drugs kill. All of them. Some kill quickly with easy overdose potential, and some kill over time. But all of them kill eventually. You can't say that 'the argument has no legs because some drugs are different than others'--because the differences between too many legal drugs and illegal drugs are NOWHERE NEAR significant enough for the penalties for using or owning the illegal ones. We legalize drugs that are far more potentially damaging or addictive than MDMA or marijuana, and illegalize drugs that cause no more harm than alcohol or tobacco.

It's not fear of fun I ascribe to conservatives. It's fear of legal immorality. That's not the same thing. I don't even claim that improving your drooling ability or tossing your cookies on drugs is FUN...nor do I claim that you can 'expand your mind' with drugs. They're drugs--you can sedate or stimulate your brain with them, but you can't get cosmic insights with `em.

I have problems with the safety-first-must-save-you-from-yourself mentality, which says we must protect people from their own idiocy and save their souls before they can damn them. Whether people are REALLY stupid, with heroin, or just somewhat stupid, with alcohol, or vaguely stupid, with smoking, we have no right to stop people from it, and certainly, we have no duty to do so.

[Under the Radar]

I had no idea. You are right, that is a dumb thing to say.

[Under the Radar]

With all due respect, the gradations are spurious. Drugs kill. All of them. Some kill quickly with easy overdose potential, and some kill over time. But all of them kill eventually.

This is why rational people cannot take this argument seriously. Saying that all drugs kill, therefore we cannot rank them, is illogical. We will all die from something.

It is an established fact that some drugs make communities much less safe. These drugs tend to be illegal. Most of us are very happy with this.

Yes, we have a right and duty to prevent folks from messing with our own lives. I don't need to live through the nightmare of drug legalization to know that it would make my home and family much less safe. Drug use by itself may be a victimless crime, but the culture that surrounds it is degenerate and destructive. Liberals and libertarians made the same argument about the sexual revolution and feminism, and you were wrong then and you are wrong now.

I will, however, cede the field to you. I am fairly uninterested in this topic, and since drug criminalizion is a fait accompli, I cannot get too worked up about it. My best to you, sir or madam.

[LibertarianInExile]

I certainly appreciate you ceding the field. Now if you would just concede the law as well...

I am certainly NOT saying that we can't rank them at all--my argument is that the current rankings are silly in light of the primary arguments that 'drugs kill,' and 'addicts commit crimes,' and if you want me to say the drug laws are logical, you'll certainly have to show me how that could be when alcohol is legal, morphine is legal, and marijuana and MDMA are not. Alcohol kills more people than any other drug. Morphine is pretty much the most addictive drug there is.

And you state 'established facts' that aren't. Many areas where drugs are legal are quite safe, which puts paid to your 'established fact.' Some aren't, but some places where drugs are illegal aren't safe, either. Does there come a correlation between the two? I don't think so.

And the sexual revolution and feminism had less to do with the law and the legal status of women than the drug laws do. Women were chattel in many states before the advent of SUFFRAGE, certainly, but the sexual revolution and feminism had really minimal effect on the laws affecting women, and were more intent on reforming societal mores. The movement for reform of drug laws, on the other hand, is the RESULT of societal mores regarding drugs and drug laws imposed as a result of overzealous legislators, and those are laws affecting EVERYONE.

[MrLeRoy]

It is an established fact that some drugs make communities much less safe. These drugs tend to be illegal.

Alcohol is much worse for community safety than marijuana, yet the safer drug is illegal while the less safe one is legal.