88-Year-Old Inventor Hassled By the DEA 757
New submitter Calibax writes "30 years ago, Bob Wallace and his partner came up with a product to help hikers, flood victims and others purify water. Wallace, now 88 years old, packs his product by hand in his garage, stores it in his backyard shed and sells it for $6.50. Recently, the DEA has been hassling him because his product uses crystalline iodine. He has been refused a license to purchase the iodine because it can be used in the production of crystal meth, and as a result he is now out of business. A DEA spokesman describes this as 'collateral damage' not resulting from DEA regulations but from the selfish actions of criminals."
Not just meth (Score:5, Informative)
It can also be used to create an explosive compound that shall remain nameless.
Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to read TFA and I hate to defend the DEA (did we learn nothing from Prohibition?) but once again this is a sloppy and wholly misleading article summary (thanks Slashdot!) To wit:
As much as I like this guy and his sense of humor, it seems much less sinister than the Slashdot linkbait summary indicates. It appears to be a pretty simple case of "government restricts chemical that can be used in meth labs, old guy making product in his garage with said product doesn't want to deal with the government bureaucracy and is surprised when the government shuts off his access to that chemical."
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
The list of controlled chemicals (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the DEA's list. [usdoj.gov] Those marked as "List 1" are the most restricted. It's not that long a list. Iodine is the only chemical on List 1 that isn't particularly hazardous.
Re:Motherfuckers. (Score:4, Informative)
He seems to have clarified / changed his mind: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy [garyjohnson2012.com]
(Thanks for bringing that up... I didn't know he ever said that.)
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:4, Informative)
read TFA again pls, that $100,000 number you quoted is not the regular income but it was the MAXIMUM they had ever made in an year, long ago.
they make much less than that per year these days.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, that's the ether that causes meth labs to explode. I won't go into details, but you use a shitload of ether in amphetamine production.
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Informative)
It can also be used to create an explosive compound that shall remain nameless.
Why should it be nameless?
Nitrogen Triiodide [wikipedia.org]
Censorship will never prevent misuse, only perpetuate ignorance. It is better to explain that this compound explodes violently, and at the smallest touch [collegehumor.com] (starts at about 1:00).
Re:Land of the Dream? (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:4, Informative)
Sure it is, and as the article stated, it would be pretty easy. He sells to camping stores, and camping supply wholesalers. It's not up to him to provide the list of end users, and that's not what they were asking for.
The DEA cut off his supplier, because his product was already found being used in the manufacture of illegal drugs. It's not any sort of vengeful act against him. The problem has come about where he refused to cooperate with some simple requests.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:4, Informative)
You sue the agency. This is how the overbroad application of wetlands regulation beyond the 'navigable waters of the USA' was overturned.
Generally agencies get a great deal of deference in creation and application of their regulation but whether that extends to interpratation of the underlying authorizing act is less clear. In other words you have no chance in court challenging a DEA ruling that crystalized iodine is a meth precursor no matter what the facts provided the law gives them the power to enumerate precursors by regulation. If they are genuinely overstepping the power granted by the law rather than making unwise determinations it's more feasible.
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Informative)
He had no competitors, apparently. This action just put the entire market for this particular product entirely out of business.
Looking at the Wikipedia article right now, these iodine crystals were a low-cost and high-water-volume alternative to dissolving iodine tablets, and Polar Pure is the only product of its class mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_water_purification#Chemical_disinfection [wikipedia.org]
Re:There's also no real safe recreational dose for (Score:3, Informative)
"Combine that with the massive amount of damage it does and it is just not safe for use at all really."
A new study out this week from Columbia University reports that the "massive amount of damage" caused by meth is actually totally overblown, basically a "myth", and in fact counter-productive for the purpose of treating meth addicts. Very much in the same scare-mongering tradition of claims that (a) marijuana causes instant insanity, (b) crack babies are crippled for life, etc.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/21/why-the-myth-of-the-meth-damaged-brain-may-hinder-recovery/ [time.com]
Re:Not just meth (Score:5, Informative)
Laser printer toner is a great explosive. As is flower.
Re:Am I the only one who thinks he's an idiot? (Score:4, Informative)
No, the guy doesn't make $100,000 per year, he brings in 100,000 per year gross. Unless his margins are absoloutely huge then he will be making a lot less.
You also ignored the part of the article where he did apply for the license but was then refused.
And how much is he supposed to spend on security? Enough to wipe out a year's net income?
I do not think the over regulation of these kinds of materials is necessary in society, but it is what it is right now.
He is in a position to do the best thing possible: treat the regulations with the utter contempt they deserve and bring in some much needed publicity.
Re:Not just meth (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary (Score:5, Informative)
And they know that small operators don't have the resources to do that. The NAR and Tripoli (model/amateur rocket organizations) sued the BATFE for classifying Ammonium Perchlorate based propellants as explosives, when the BATFE's own testing showed that the burn rate was a small fraction of their _own_ limit for what constitutes and explosive. It took a decade and a six figure legal bill to beat them in court.
Re:Not just meth (Score:4, Informative)
Dude, if you want to make chorine gas, that's a silly way.
Go look under your kitchen sink. Remember how you're not supposed to mix bleach and ammonia?
Guess why.
Fun fact: Doing it the 'right' way, with the correct amount of each, is perfectly safe if you don't mind getting killed with chlorine gas. Doing it the 'wrong' way with too much ammonia will produce hydrazine, aka, rocket fuel, which will explode in your face if you do, well, anything, like move around or breath.
And, because God wanted to make sure we won't try this in any form at all, doing it the 'wrong' way by adding too much bleach will poison you in an entirely different way with nitrogen trichloride, which will also heat up so much it, uh, explodes. Also, there's going to be a bunch of spare hydrochloric acid in that explosion, although I'm not sure having that in an explosion is going to be more painful than just a normal explosion. (We must now blow up a control group, and then blow up another group with explosive made out of hydrochloric acid.)
There are some warning labels they are kid ding about, or that won't really cause problems. And there are some things they really aren't screwing around when they tell you not to do it.
Admittedly for your point, it technically would be possible to ban bleach and/or ammonia.