Sign the Resolution for a Federal Commission on Drug Policy
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Government Publications
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
RESEARCH IN BRIEF
PREVENTING ILLEGAL DIVERSION OF CHEMICALS:
A MODEL STATUTE
BY SHERRY GREEN
Letter from Michael J. Russell, Acting Director, National Institute of
Chemicals diverted from legitimate commerce are used in the production of
illicit drugs such as cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, PCP, and LSD.
Controlling illegal diversion and use of such chemicals is essential to
limiting illicit drug production. Recent efforts to address this problem are
based on the belief that illicit drug production can be traced from the
records of chemical manufacturers and dealers of raw materials in the same
way that laundered money can be traced through financial records.
The principal U.S. statute to control chemical diversion is the Chemical
Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988, which established record keeping
requirements and enforcement activities, initially for 20 chemicals.
The Act has already proven effective in limiting the international illicit
diversion of the identified chemicals and controlling some domestic
manufacturing. However, illicit drug production in the United States has been
rising at an alarming rate, with illegal domestic laboratories now capable of
producing enough stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, and narcotics to
satisfy demand for these substances.
Adequate record-keeping ensures that there are paper trails on chemicals sent
to illegal laboratories that make drugs. Thirty-two States, however, do not
require record-keeping of transactions involving chemicals identified as
necessary for producing illegal drugs. Criminals camouflage diversion of
chemicals by moving shipments through States without record-keeping
To focus attention on the need for all State law enforcement agencies to
supplement Federal controls over chemical traffic and its diversion into
illicit drug manufacturing, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a
project to create a Model State Chemical Control Act. The Model Act seeks to
balance and accommodate the interests of law enforcement and legitimate
commerce. This Research in Brief explains how the Model Act can be used to
help halt the growth of illegal domestic drug manufacturing by stopping the
diversion of chemicals from legitimate to illegitimate purposes.
Law enforcement agencies around the world are using a variety of methods to
attack the illegal and deadly "industry" of illicit drugs. Enforcement
officials seize contraband substances, break up distribution networks,
disrupt money-laundering operations, and destroy crops. A critical part of
this multifaceted attack on drug trafficking is the control of specific
chemicals that are necessary to produce illegal drugs.
The United States is one of the world's leading producers and distributors of
the chemicals that are used to make controlled substances. Each year our
Nation exports more than 50,000 metric tons of chemicals to Latin America,
many of which find their way into the clandestine laboratories of cocaine-
and heroin-producing countries. In fact, seizures of illegal labs in Colombia
and other Latin American countries often uncover chemical containers with US.
company logos. Until 1989 much of the cocaine entering our country was
produced using chemicals originating in the United States.
Although there has been a decline in the export of chemicals for
manufacturing illegal drugs, there has been an increase in the chemicals'
distribution at home. Illegal domestic laboratories are now capable of
producing enough illicit drugs to satisfy U.S. consumers' demand.
In 1991 the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) supported a project to help
the States develop a legislative response to the problem of distribution of
chemicals and their manufacture into illegal drugs. To prepare the Model
State Chemical Control Act of 1992 (the Model), the American Prosecutors
Research Institute (APRI), the research arm of the National District
Attorneys Association, brought together investigators and prosecutors from
Arizona, California, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington State. In addition, APRI
solicited comments from the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) on the lessons they had learned at the Federal level and
sought to understand the concerns of the chemical and pharmaceutical
This Research in Brief describes how chemicals are used to make illicit
drugs, discusses existing Federal and State legislation to curtail the
diversion of chemicals for illicit drug production, and reviews the Model
DOMESTIC ILLICIT DRUG PRODUCTION
--Essential and precursor chemicals: All major illicit drugs except marijuana
are either extracted or synthesized in a process requiring chemicals that are
categorized as either "essential" or "precursor." Essential chemicals are
used to extract drugs, such as cocaine, from plants. Although these chemicals
do not become part of the drug's molecular structure, they are crucial to the
manufacturing process. Precursor chemicals are used to synthesize drugs (such
as PCP), which are not naturally derived. These chemicals do become part of
the drug's molecular structure.
--Clandestine Labs: Highly sophisticated laboratory operations are sometimes
necessary to manufacture drugs. For example, producing marketable quantities
of cocaine requires large-scale operations to handle the enormous amounts of
coca leaves and solvents required. On the other hand, illegal drug production
is often a simple process, without need of complex technology, sophisticated
education, or training. Many synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine and PCP
can be produced in someone's home with readily available laboratory
equipment. In fact, with equipment and precursor chemicals worth $200, a
criminal can in 18 hours produce a batch of methamphetamine with a street
value of $98,000.(ref. 1)
In the 1980's States faced an outbreak of clandestine laboratories because
chemicals were readily available on the open market or were easily diverted
from legitimate commerce. In 1986 the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics (OBN)
seized 28 labs, an almost 100 percent increase over the 16 labs seized in
1985. Another 100 percent increase in seizures occurred in 1988 when OBN
seized 62 laboratories, compared to the 30 labs seized the previous year.
From 1985 to 1987, Texas narcotics officers seized more than twice the number
of labs as OBN.
Clandestine laboratories range from small crude operations in sheds,
bathtubs, mobile homes, boats, and motel rooms to highly sophisticated
operations with professional quality laboratory glassware and equipment.
More than 80 percent of the clandestine labs in the United States produce
methamphetamines.(ref. 2) With a knowledge of chemistry equivalent to that
learned in high school, illicit lab operators are believed to produce 25 tons
of methamphetamines annually with a street value of $3 billion. Less than 1
percent of that amount is spent on the chemicals needed for production.(ref.
CHEMICAL DIVERSION AND TRAFFICKING ACT
In 1988 Congress enacted the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act (CDTA),
Subtitle A of the Anti-Drug Abuse Amendments of 1988 (codified as amendments
to the Federal Controlled Substances Act). CDTA established record-keeping
and reporting requirements and authorized enforcement activities for domestic
and international transactions in designated precursor and essential
chemicals. Originally CDTA regulated machines for making the drugs into
tablets or capsules, 12 precursor chemicals, and 8 essential chemicals. Now,
27 precursor and 7 essential chemicals are on the CDTA list. Chemicals may be
added or deleted under standard Federal rule making procedures.
CDTA applies to any individual or legal entity that manufactures, distributes
domestically, imports, or exports any of the listed chemicals. The Act makes
the unauthorized trade in these listed chemicals equivalent to trafficking in
Each chemical has been assigned a threshold amount, by volume or weight, or a
threshold number of monthly transactions. Once the threshold has been reached
or exceeded, regulated individuals and entities must comply with Federal
record-keeping, reporting, and identification requirements. However,
threshold quantities do not apply to machinery; distribution of a single
tableting or encapsulating machine triggers CDTA provisions.
Among the provisions are requirements that purchasers supply proof of
identity in all regulated transactions. The type of identification required
depends on whether the customer is new, is an individual or established
business, is paying in cash, or is exporting the chemical to another country.
Records of regulated domestic transactions involving a precursor chemical or
a tableting or encapsulating machine must be kept for 4 years. For an
essential chemical, the record must be kept 2 years. Records must be readily
retrievable either at the business where the transaction occurred or some
other central location. Each record must contain specific information about
the transaction and is subject to inspection and photocopying by the Drug
CDTA requires that regulated individuals and entities report some
circumstances both orally and in writing to DEA. These include uncommon
methods of payment, loss or disappearance of a chemical, and suspicion that a
chemical has been diverted for illegal purposes. As with records, reports
must contain the date of the transaction, quantity of the chemical purchased,
name and address of each party, method of transfer, and other descriptive
details. On the basis of the reports or a lapse in record-keeping, DEA has
the authority to stop chemical shipments. Receipt of the required advance
notice of shipments can trigger DEA suspension when an illicit transfer is
--The effect of Federal control: Shortly after implementation of CDTA, DEA
noted a downward trend in domestic illegal lab activity as measured by the
number of lab seizures. Of the 1,000 projected DEA lab seizures for 1989, 807
materialized. A sharper decline occurred the following year when DEA seized
521 laboratories. This decline was the first time seizures had dropped
significantly since 1981.
CDTA has also been successful in controlling exports of essential chemicals
to Latin America. But as the pathways to foreign buyers have narrowed, some
U.S. exporters have turned their attention to the domestic market.
Opportunities for diversion exist all along the domestic commercial chain.
Although CDTA's strict requirements help safeguard the legal transfer of
chemicals above the threshold levels, illicit operators are restructuring
their businesses to avoid Federal regulations. They are focusing their
efforts on States that do not have effective mechanisms for controlling
--Closing the door: The Office of National Drug Control Policy has estimated
that the world supply of cocaine in 1990 was 1,000 metric tons, or about 2.2
million pounds. To produce this amount of cocaine, millions of pounds of
essential chemicals were required for processing. But many of these chemicals
such as hydrochloric acid also have hundreds of legitimate uses, and for this
reason, they are common substances in international trade.
Criminals obtain these substances from manufacturers through theft, bribery
of employees, or even legal purchase, especially in areas that lack chemical
control laws or do not enforce them. Poor plant security can increase theft,
and some retail purchasers are actually "front companies" set up by producers
to disguise the illicit drug trade.
In addition, the vast international network of freight forwarders, brokers,
and agents provides access to chemicals through multiple sales transactions,
similar to money-laundering operations. In ports and free trade zones,
criminals can obtain the desired chemicals by repacking or re-labeling
CDTA has greatly decreased U.S. exports of essential chemicals to Latin
America. This Federal statute has added to costs borne by criminals, and the
new regulation and record-keeping requirements of the Act make it
increasingly likely that illicit operators are restructuring their businesses
to avoid Federal regulations. They are focusing their efforts on States that
do not have effective mechanisms for controlling chemicals.
THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE STATE CONTROLS
State regulatory and enforcement efforts are needed to supplement Federal
controls over the movement of chemicals into illegal channels. If State
officials can follow the trail of precursor and essential chemicals from the
chemical manufacturer to the illicit drug producer, then producers can be
identified and apprehended before they manufacture illegal drugs. Controlling
these chemicals, therefore, is a potent strategy that can help identify drug
criminals and interfere with their operations.
Effective regulation of chemical transactions could dry up the sources that
supply illegal labs. However, clandestine drug production is a nomadic
business. When chemicals become difficult to obtain in one locale, illegal
lab operators simply move their operations to a location where acquisition of
chemicals is less complicated. Differences in the extent of control exercised
by the States currently make that a fairly easy process. More consistent
State laws could curtail movement of illegal labs from State to State.
EXISTING VARIATIONS IN STATE CONTROLS
To date 18 States have sought to control the existence of clandestine labs by
enacting their own detailed chemical tracking requirements. Some
jurisdictions have incorporated these requirements into their controlled
substances acts already on the books, while others have adopted new, distinct
--Number of chemicals: Colorado controls the largest number of chemicals (35)
while Montana regulates 9. The differences reflect each State's experience or
policy regarding diversion, abuse, and the potential illicit use of a
chemical. Nearly all of the States that have controls exclude prescription or
over-the-counter drugs, or both, from chemical requirements, with special
exemptions for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, and
--Registration: All 18 States require a license or permit to lawfully
manufacture or transfer a regulated chemical. Only a few regulate the
purchase or possession of chemicals. Registration renewal generally happens
annually and involves a reasonable fee; the definition of reasonable varies
from a maximum of $25 in Arkansas to a minimum of $250 in New Mexico. Grounds
for denial, suspension, or revocation include fraud; drug law violations and
convictions; and denial, suspension, or revocation of Federal registrations.
--Record-keeping: Differences also occur in the requirements for
record-keeping. For example, several jurisdictions mandate that chemical
transfer records be kept for 2 years after the transaction date, but
Minnesota requires that records be kept for 5 years. Texas requires that
records of sales of laboratory apparatus also be kept. Hawaii and Missouri
maintain the confidentiality of information obtained through records.
Pennsylvania penalizes wrongful use of the information.
--Reporting: Required reporting of intrastate transfers and out-of-State
purchases also varies among States. In several States the regulatory agency
must be given 21 days advance notice of any chemical delivery. Some States
provide a monthly reporting alternative for individuals and entities with a
history of lawful use, a regular relationship with a recipient, or both.
While California and Montana require notice of receipt of chemicals within 3
days after delivery, Oregon allows 10 days. Ten States require that special
reports be submitted within 3 days after discovery of a theft or loss of
chemicals, and eight require reports within 3 days for a discrepancy in
quantities shipped and received. Iowa and Washington extend these deadlines
to 7 days.
--Exemptions: Medical professionals, agents, and licensed entities such as
common carriers are traditionally exempt from licensing or reporting
obligations. Some States expand the exemptions to include college chemistry
students, government employees, or researchers.
--Purchaser identification: Most jurisdictions mandate that individual
purchasers identify themselves with a photograph, proof of street or
residential mailing address, and signature. Some jurisdictions ask for the
purchaser's birth date, driver's license or other State-issued identification
number, year in which the purchaser's vehicle was manufactured, and vehicle
license tag number. Most business recipients must furnish an authorization
letter listing an identification number, an address, a phone number, and a
description of the chemical's intended use.
--Responsibility: Finally, there is no consensus among the States on which
government agency should be given regulatory responsibility. The 18 States
assign this duty to a wide variety of health, pharmaceutical, commerce, and
ILLEGITIMATE USES FOR LEGITIMATE PRODUCTS
Many people recognize ephedrine as an ingredient in sinus medications.
However, consumers are often unaware that ephedrine is also the primary
precursor used to illegally produce methamphetamine (meth). In 1990, 53
percent of the clandestine meth labs seized by the Drug Enforcement
Administration used the ephedrine reduction method to produce the drug.(ref.
State officials report that illicit meth laboratories in the West and
Southwest began using ephedrine after phenylacetic acid came under State
regulation. In northern California 85 percent of the seized meth labs used
single-ingredient ephedrine tablets. In Oregon officials discovered that
over-the-counter ephedrine tablets sold in the Portland area had become a
source of ephedrine for northwest meth lab operators.(ref. 5)
For this reason, ephedrine has been included in the list of chemicals
targeted for regulation under the Model State Chemical Control Act.
MODEL STATE CHEMICAL CONTROL ACT
In developing the Model State Chemical Control Act of 1992, the drafters
sought to close loopholes in existing Federal and State legislation and to
foster greater consistency among State regulations. Unlike most criminal
laws, the Model is a preventive measure. Its goal is to stop drug offenses
before they occur by preventing precursor and essential chemicals from being
diverted to illegal channels. It seeks to protect the interests of legitimate
commerce without limiting the ability of law enforcement to stop illicit
Monitoring every transaction involving a regulated chemical. The Model
creates a monitoring system that tracks 35 chemicals from source to use. It
covers a comprehensive range of chemicals controlled by States and the
The Model's reporting and record-keeping requirements apply to every
transaction involving a regulated chemical, not just those exceeding a legal
threshold. Under Federal law, manufacturers and distributors do not have to
report or keep records on individuals or businesses who buy chemicals in
amounts below the legal threshold. Individuals can circumvent the law by
making multiple purchases of small quantities, thereby accumulating large
amounts of chemicals for clandestine production. Unfortunately, Federal
officials have no way of obtaining information about such transactions. The
Model permits State and local officials to address this type of diversion
activity, which would otherwise escape detection until after illegal use of
The list of regulated chemicals can be modified by rule in response to
changes in diversion or use. Under the Model, State officials may regulate a
chemical on an emergency basis while awaiting completion of normal
Emergency regulation is sometimes necessary to prevent imminent hazards to
public health and safety. Some chemicals are flammable or toxic and their use
must be controlled as soon as possible to prevent explosions, environmental
damage, or illness.
Registering manufacturers and distributors. Responsibility for the control of
regulated chemicals rests primarily with manufacturers and distributors.
Therefore, the Model requires that they annually furnish law enforcement with
detailed information about the sources, location, and amount of chemicals
available for sale. The purpose of annual registration is threefold:
--To convey to manufacturers and distributors an understanding of the
critical role they play in eliminating illegal chemical transfers.
--To help government officials determine if the chemicals found at
clandestine lab sites have been supplied by a legal or "underground" source.
--To help government officials more accurately assess the extent of illegal
The drafters anticipate that the number of annual registrations to be
processed will be manageable. For example, in California officials currently
register only 40 to 45 companies per year.
Requiring permits to possess a regulated chemical. Permits identify which
persons intend to use specific quantities of chemicals for a specific
With certain exceptions, every applicant for a permit must provide detailed
personal information, including a criminal history and notarized fingerprint
card. Based on this information, government officials ascertain the fitness
of a potential chemical recipient and ensure that the intended use is lawful.
The permit provision is modeled after Oklahoma's chemical control statute,
which extends the law beyond the traditional "receiving" category of
purchasers to individuals who want to "possess" a regulated chemical. By
requiring that they obtain a permit each time they seek to possess a
regulated chemical, the Model eliminates a significant loophole in many
existing statutes. For example, some illegal "cookers" manufacture controlled
substances using chemicals produced in their own clandestine laboratories.
They are not subject to existing regulation and liability provisions, which
apply solely to purchasers, because they do not buy the chemical from an
outside source. Under the Model statute, "cookers" would be subject to the
law because although they do not "receive" the chemicals, they nonetheless
The Model's permit process protects legitimate commerce in two ways. First,
it exempts the owners and officers of publicly held corporations (those with
35 shareholders or more) from the disclosure requirements of permit
applications. These corporations are often fairly sizable businesses or are
headquartered out-of-State. Their shareholders and officers lack the personal
access necessary to illegally use or transfer regulated chemicals. The Model
assumes that there is no need for detailed background information or
fingerprint cards for such persons.
Second, the Model includes a reporting alternative for possessors who
demonstrate a history of regular, legitimate use. The risk of these
possessors diverting chemicals for unlawful purposes is less than with other
possessors. Therefore, they may submit retrospective monthly reports of
actual chemical use in lieu of obtaining permits. The Model prevents
unnecessary duplication by accepting copies of Federal reports containing
information about threshold amounts of regulated chemicals.
--Exempting individuals from regulation: The Model exempts common carriers
pharmacists, physicians, and other authorized practitioners from the
statute's requirements. Manufacturers can obtain a special exemption to
continue marketing bona fide drug products such as over-the counter sinus and
asthma medications. A special exemption is granted upon a finding by State
officials that a product is manufactured and distributed in a manner that
prevents its diversion. In making the finding, State officials consider the
product's packaging, advertising, and actual or potential for diversion.(ref.
--Safeguarding possession of regulated chemicals: The Model contains a number
of safeguards to prevent unauthorized or unscrupulous persons from gaining
access to regulated chemicals. It specifies that the following persons are
ineligible to apply for a registration or permit:
Convicted drug offenders.
Persons who have had a prior registration or permit
Because juveniles are subject to milder penalties than adults, they
frequently have been recruited to become participants in criminal activity.
Therefore, making minors ineligible should preclude drug balers from using
juveniles to acquire chemicals for illegal purposes.
The Model also provides for denial, suspension, or revocation of a
registration or permit. Violation of the statutory rules, falsification of a
document, and similar acts are grounds for denial of authorized access to
Spotting discrepancies in the flow of chemicals. The Model establishes four
information-gathering mechanisms to help State officials spot possible
First, the Model requires manufacturers, distributors, and possessors to
report any suspicious transaction or circumstance. cash payments,
discrepancies between quantities shipped and received, and theft or loss of
chemicals are all examples of suspicious circumstances.
Second, the Model requires manufacturers, distributors, brokers, and traders
to provide monthly reports detailing every transaction involving a regulated
chemical. The reports allow officials to identify the true purchaser of
chemicals and ascertain whether the actual chemical use is consistent with
the stated intended use.
Third, the Model requires purchasers to submit information about themselves,
their permit or other authorization, and their vehicles prior to receiving or
distributing a regulated chemical. This provision, which incorporates
California's purchaser identification requirements, also facilitates
determination of the ultimate purchaser and the chemical's use.
Fourth, manufacturers and distributors are required to take inventory
annually and to keep all transaction records readily accessible for 4 years.
--Providing for enforcement: The Model vests State officials with the
authority to identify and respond to situations of noncompliance. It
authorizes limited warrantless inspections during regular business hours and
allows State officials to routinely inspect inventories, storage facilities,
records, papers, files, and equipment.(ref. 9) It also grants State officials
the power to subpoena witnesses and require document production. The Model
provides for stiff fines and terms of imprisonment for noncompliance.
To eliminate the economic incentive for this type of criminal activity, the
Model applies a State's drug forfeiture procedures to money and property used
in violation of the chemical diversion statute.
--Recovering expenses: As with any proactive regulatory scheme, the Model
requires a continuing investment of time and money. To prevent financial
strain on scarce State resources, a system of nonrefundable application fees
is recommended to help offset the cost of administering the program.
In addition, the Model imposes a special civil assessment on violators of the
statute to be used for cleanup of illegal laboratory sites. Seizure of
clandestine laboratories often reveals significant amounts of hazardous or
toxic waste and other byproducts that have been found. Under Federal law, law
enforcement agencies become liable for various cleanup and transporting
operations, damage to natural resources, and subsequent health risks that
remain after the lab is dismantled.(ref. 10)
Last year Oklahoma spent approximately $6,000 to clean up illegal labs, and
for several years California has spent more than $1 million a year for
similar tasks. However, these expenses were only for removing bulk
contamination. In the future site restoration through hazardous waste removal
may require even larger sums of money. The civil assessment will prevent
violators from escaping financial liability for the environmental damage they
cause and help States address the issue of long-term hazardous waste or
APPLYING THE MODEL
The chemical control legislation in California, Oklahoma, Texas, and
Washington served as guides for creating the Model. Oklahoma and Texas
officials have already noted the positive effect of their legislation on the
struggle to eliminate illegal drug production. The Oklahoma Bureau of
Narcotics and Texas Department of Public Safety indicate that their States'
precursor laws significantly reduced the availability of chemicals throughout
Oklahoma and Texas. The reduction in supply has led to a decrease in
clandestine laboratory activity in both States. The Texas Department of
Public Safety reports that the availability of illicit amphetamine and
methamphetamine in Texas decreased about 50 percent during the 3-year period
since passage of its statute."
Despite the success of these States' efforts, the lack of adequate chemical
controls in many states provides illegal drug manufacturers with
opportunities to expand their production of controlled substances. The toll
in health, welfare, enforcement, and safety costs as well as human suffering
is incalculable. The Model is designed to help State policymakers and
criminal justice professionals develop legislation that will severely curtail
domestic illegal drug production while protecting legitimate commercial
COPING WITH CHEMICAL HAZARDS
Seizures of clandestine labs pose special problems for law enforcement
officers because many of the chemicals used in drug manufacturing are
dangerous. For example, acids and solvents are corrosive and flammable, and
some are highly explosive. About one-fifth of clandestine lab seizures result
from reports of fires caused by chemical processes.(ref. 7)
In addition, many precursor and essential chemicals are corrosive and can
cause lung and eye damage, even upon exposure to vapors emanating from the
lab. Furthermore, according to a study in California, one-tenth of seized
labs were booby-trapped with explosives or with disfiguring and poisonous
chemical devices.(ref. 8)
For these reasons, law enforcement experts recommend that police officers in
all areas of the criminal justice system be given special training in
handling these substances. They note that rural police agencies are just as
likely to encounter clandestine labs as urban police. Highway patrols and
other agencies in jurisdictions with large railroad and other transportation
hubs are likely to find such substances en route to a clandestine location.
1. Impact of Clandestine Drug Laboratories on Small Business, 1988: Hearing
Before the Subcommittee on Regulation and Business Opportunities of the House
of Representatives Committee on Small Business, 100th Congress, 2d Session,
1988 (Statement of David Frohnmayer, Attorney General of the State of
2. Drug Enforcement Administration. Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine
Drug Laboratories. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug
Enforcement Administration, 1990.
3. Laszlo, A.T. "Clandestine Drug Laboratories: Confronting a Growing
National Crisis." National Sheriff, 41 (1989): 9-14.
4. American Prosecutors Research Institute, Highlights of the Model State
Chemical Control Act. Alexandria, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research
Institute, 1991: 6-7.
5. American Prosecutors Research Institute, Highlights, pp. 6-7.
6. This provision is based on draft CDTA amendments negotiated between DEA
and chemical and drug manufacturers.
7. National Institute of Justice. Controlling Chemicals Used to Make Illegal
Drugs: The Chemical Action Task Force and the Domestic Chemical Action Group.
Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, January
8. Laszlo, "Clandestine Drug Laboratories," 9-14.
9. This provision complies with New York v. Burger, 107 S. Ct. 2636 (1987).
10. These requirements result from provisions of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 U.S.C. 9601-9657
(1982), amended by 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (1988)] and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901-6992 (1988)]. Also, the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act [Public Law 99-499] makes owners of contaminated
property responsible for decontamination before it is sold. Thus, if a
property is confiscated by a local jurisdiction, seized through asset
forfeiture laws, and subsequently sold, the jurisdiction may still be
responsible for cleanup.
11. Jolley, Inspector Jerrell, and Inspector Kenneth Hailey. Chemical
Precursor Legislation: Texas Reduces the General Availability of Illicit
Amphetamine and Methamphetamine. Unpublished report, March 1991.
American Prosecutors Research Institute. State Drug Laws for the '90s.
Alexandria, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research Institute, 1991.
Duncan, John. Clandestine Labs on Decline. Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics
Enforcement. Unpublished report, 1991-1992.
Duncan, John. Surviving Clandestine Labs. Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics
Enforcement. Unpublished report, 1991-1992.
Drug Enforcement Administration. Report summarizing State precursor control
laws. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
Administration. Unpublished, 1991-1992.
General Accounting Office. Briefing report on the Drug Enforcement
Administration's implementation of the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act
of 1988. B-243007, April 1991.
Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of
the U.S. Department of Justice.
The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Sherry Green was a senior attorney at the American Prosecutors Research
Institute in Alexandria, Virginia, when she worked on this project to develop
the Model (supported by NIJ grant #91-IJ-CX-K002). She currently serves as
executive Director of the President's Commission on Model State Drug Laws,
which is reviewing the Model for possible inclusion in its report to the
States on recommended model laws.
Drafters of the Model in addition to Ms. Green were Steve Brookman, Oklahoma
State Bureau of Investigation, Mark Faull, Crime Strike, Phoenix, Arizona;
William Holman, San Diego District Attorney's Office; John Duncan Oklahoma
Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement; Katina Kypridakes, California Bureau of
Narcotics Enforcement; Harry Matz, U.S. Department of Justice; Michael Scott,
Texas Department of Public Safety; Richard Wintory, Oklahoma County District
Attorney's Office; and Ken Ronald, Drug Enforcement Administration. Katina
Kypridakes and Mark Faull assisted with the development of this Research in
Readers who wish to learn more about how States can address the chemical
diversion issue may request a special information package that includes a
copy of the Model and accompanying commentary; sample State statutes,
regulations, and forms; and a chart of State chemical control requirements.
Interested persons should write the American Prosecutors Research Institute,
National Drug Prosecution Center, 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510,
Alexandria, VA 22314, or call 703- 549-6790.
[NOTE: The published report from which this information was input contains
accompanying charts and tables.]
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Government Publications