Illnesses Afflict Homes With a Criminal Past (former meth house)

[Blue_Tires]

Source: The New York Times

WINCHESTER, Tenn. — The spacious home where the newly wed Rhonda and Jason Holt began their family in 2005 was plagued by mysterious illnesses. The Holts’ three babies were ghostlike and listless, with breathing problems that called for respirators, repeated trips to the emergency room and, for the middle child, Anna, the heaviest dose of steroids a toddler can take.

Ms. Holt, a nurse, developed migraines. She and her husband, a factory worker, had kidney ailments.

It was not until February, more than five years after they moved in, that the couple discovered the root of their troubles: their house, across the road from a cornfield in this town some 70 miles south of Nashville, was contaminated with high levels of methamphetamine left by the previous occupant, who had been dragged from the attic by the police.

The Holts’ next realization was almost as devastating: it was up to them to spend the $30,000 or more that cleanup would require.

With meth lab seizures on the rise nationally for the first time since 2003, similar cases are playing out in several states, drawing attention to the problem of meth contamination, which can permeate drywall, carpets, insulation and air ducts, causing respiratory ailments and other health problems.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/us/14meth.html?em

[sui generis]

1. mercuric chloride

'nough said.

It's not the meth itself, it's the chemicals used to precipitate it out of solution; if they aren't fully reacted the by product is mercury contamination which impacts children much more readily than adults at the same concentrations.

[Robb]

2. And yet the idiots among us still believe meth is just like pot.

"Legalize it and all your problems will go away." :eyes:

[crikkett]

6. where did that come from?

I've never heard anyone say that legalizing meth would make the problem go away.

[Robb]

9. "Simply legalize it all"

Link

[Lilith Velkor]

11. Apparently, your solution is to make foreign drug cartels richer

in hopes that foreign children will suffer instead of American ones, whilst ignoring the fact that making meth more expensive gives all the more incentive to cook it here, in random exurban homes instead of laboratories subject to safety regulations and quality standards, with proper disposal of hazardous waste.

Oh wait, that's right, the whole point of making it more expensive is to sacrifice the children of richer people so that their parents are inspired to "do something about it."

Well, what the fuck are they supposed to do, make it *more* illegal? Like, super-duper illegal? How is that supposed to prevent toxic chemical exposure?

Your position is not only sadistic and short-sighted, it is self-defeating and stupid.

[Robb]

13. I guess I missed your brilliant solution entirely. nt

[Lilith Velkor]

14. It is implied in the first paragraph.

For a good elaboration, I recommend reading post #10.

The four-year-old post you linked to did not suggest "all problems would go away," by the way. Just the ones that you complained about in that thread, in order to justify spreading further misery to both the middle class and other countries.

[Robb]

15. Well heck, you figured me out.

...At what point did my evil scheme to "spread further misery to both the middle class and other countries" become so obvious? :D

Saw right through me. Damn you. :rofl:

[Lilith Velkor]

18. It was in the thread you linked to - "Passing the problem on? Better believe it."

Enjoy your glee at the brilliance of using a non-solution as a solution, but should one of those richer kids on meth butcher your family in order to provide inspiration for a real solution, don't come crying to me. :D

[Flaneur]

10. That's a straw man argument.

I support ending drug prohibition, even for meth. I don't know anybody who claims "all your problems will go away," but one big set of problems will: Those related to prohibition. That includes things like contaminated meth houses, impurities caused by amateur chemists, the lack of access to things like Sudafed by allergy sufferers, criminality associated with black markets, funding Mexican drug cartels, and criminal justice system costs of persecuting meth users.

There will still be the problems associated with stimulant abuse. We can concentrate on dealing with them. My position in short is that we should treat all drugs more or less like alcohol and keep the cops out of it except to clean up the mess, as we do with alcohol.

Meth is not poison, it's not radioactive, it's a Schedule II controlled substance, marketed under the name Desoxyn.

[WriteDown]

12. Why will THOSE problems go away?

The only way those go away if it is cheaper to buy it from a manufacturer which is extremely unlikely. I can't imagine the amount of lawsuits a manufacturer or a distributor of meth would face.

[Flaneur]

16. My response: Buying it from a manufacturer is exactly what I propose.

It is already commercially available from Abbott Labs; it's called Desoyxn.

I would imagine legal meth manufacturers would face the same lawsuits as legal alcohol manufacturers.

Legally obtainable meth should be cheaper than black market meth. I assume legally obtainable anything is cheaper than its black market equivalent. That would drive users away from risky home-cooking, with its dangers for users (impurities, getting poisoned or blown up) and innocent third parties (contaminated houses, other environmental damage).

If meth were legal, we wouldn't have to place onerous restrictions on Sudafed, etc.

If meth were legal, the criminal black market would be greatly reduced, if not totally eliminated. Alcohol is legal, but there are still people selling Appalachian moonshine in Washington, DC. The violence associated with black markets would also decline as the size of the black market shrinks.

Much of our current illicit meth comes from Mexico. That was an unintended consequence of all those Sudafed-type laws restricting access to precursors here. I generically refer to those laws as the Mexican Methamphetamine Market Share Enhancement Act. Cutting off the cartels from American meth markets hurts them in the pocketbook.

Criminal justice system costs would assuredly decrease if we don't arrest meth users merely for being meth users, but only for committing crimes against others.

Again, we would still have the problems related to meth abuse, but we have them now, anyway.

[WriteDown]

17. Comparing meth to alcohol is dishonest...

As the effects are dissimilar in their scope and addictiveness. Also Desoxyn is HEAVILY regulated and sold only in 5mg dosages. Even if someone downs a whole bottle of 20 tablets, they are getting less "meth" than recreationally. Also, the cost is still significantly higher.

[Flaneur]

19. I wasn't comparing the biopharmaceutical properties of the two drugs.

But the potential liability for lawsuits.

That said, it seems that most mild-altering drugs have about the same level of addictiveness. Whether it's alcohol or cocaine or heroin or meth or even pot, somewhere between 10% and 20% of users develop dependency or addiction or whatever you want to call it. And while meth is known to cause some crazy behavior, probably every weirdness achieved by a tweaker has also been achieved by a drunk.

Yes, Desoxyn is highly regulated. If we want a non-prohibition regime, its availability would have to be increased. And perhaps even alternate dosages allowed.

I don't know what a prescription to Desoxyn costs, but if you can't sell a legal product for less than its black market countepart, something is seriously screwed up somewhere.

I believe in freedom to control one's own body. The flip side of that is personal responsbility. If drug users are harming others or their property, arrest them for that crime, but don't arrest drug users simply for being drug users.

[WriteDown]

20. Your logic is flawed....

"I don't know what a prescription to Desoxyn costs, but if you can't sell a legal product for less than its black market countepart, something is seriously screwed up somewhere."

Illegal drugs do not have to take safety precautions, pay legal fees, pay distribution costs, etc. That is why an illegal drug is likely to be cheaper.

"But the potential liability for lawsuits."

The liability lies in the effects. A toddler can get into a pint of gin and may be alright. A bottle of desoxyn and not so much.


*edited for terrible grammar

[Demeter]

3. One More Superfund Target

[Mugweed]

4. That should have come out in the disclosure

The site should have been listed in the National Clandestine Laboratory Database and been flagged as an environmental risk. They should sue the real estate company who sold them the house. It should have come out in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that the banks usually order for financing. They should also sue the consultants who did the Phase I.

[Xithras]

8. ESA's in a private sale?...And there are no disclosures in a foreclosure sale.

Many people are running into trouble today because they're buying cheap bank foreclosures which don't have the same disclosure requirements as a private party sale. Meth contamination, structural issues, sub-par renovations, and general construction problems can simply be passed along to the next unsuspecting sucker without incurring any liability.

And I've never heard of a Phase I ESA being done on a private residence. Out here in California anyway, ESA's are usually only done on commercial and industrial properties.

[grasswire]

5. three babies since 2005?

wow!

[Xithras]

7. A friend had to do a meth abatement on one of his rentals a few years ago.

They paid the deposit and first months rent in cash, and then didn't pay a dime after that. When he finally got into the house after completing the eviction process, he found it trashed. Buckets of leftover chemicals were everywhere, the whole house smelled like something died in it, and in a few rooms where some of the chemicals were stored, the paint was peeling off the walls.

Worse yet, it turned out that his insurance wouldn't cover the damage.

He ended up paying over $40k to repair the house (over $10k just to pay someone to haul off and secure the toxic waste in the house). All of the sheetrock and flooring was stripped, the insulation was pulled from the walls and ceiling & replaced, and a sealant was sprayed over the studs to prevent any chemicals from leaching back out. The ONLY thing in his favor was the fact that the market was booming at the time, so he had enough equity to pull a second and fund the repairs. If that happened today, he'd probably lose the home. As it is, he bought the home as an investment and it's improbable that he'll ever make a dime from it now.