Docstoc

House Republican Methamphetamine Crisis Task Force

Document Sample
House Republican Methamphetamine Crisis Task Force Powered By Docstoc
					House Republican
Methamphetamine
Crisis Task Force
  House Republican Leader Tom Cross




                   Co-chairs
                   State Representative
                   Chapin Rose

                   State Representative
                   Dan Brady
  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPUBLICAN
METHAMPHETAMINE CRISIS TASK FORCE REPORT

           TOM CROSS – HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER

                               TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Co-Chairmen: Representative Chapin Rose and Representative Daniel P. Brady

Member Representatives:

Frank Aguilar (R-Cicero)
William Black (R-Danville)
Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro)
Rich Brauer (R-Petersburg)
Shane Cultra (R-Onarga)
Roger Eddy (R-Hutsonville)
David Leitch (R-Peoria)
Bill Mitchell (R-Forsyth)
Don Moffitt (R-Galesburg)
Rich Myers (R-Colchester)
Raymond Poe (R-Springfield)
Bob Pritchard (R-Hinckley)
Jim Sacia (R-Pecatonica)
Keith Sommer (R-Morton)
Ron Stephens (R-Greenville)
Jim Watson (R-Jacksonville)
                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE TASK FORCE

                                       INTRODUCTION

In July 2004, in response to the growing methamphetamine (meth) problem in Illinois, House
Republican Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) created the House Republican Meth Crisis Task
Force. Leader Cross named State Representatives Chapin Rose (R-Mahomet) and Daniel P.
Brady (R-Bloomington) co-chairmen of the task force. The task force held fourteen public
hearings throughout the state during August and September of 2004.

Facing the ever-increasing epidemic of meth use in Illinois, and especially in the rural areas
thereof, Representatives Rose and Brady requested Leader Cross to form this task force to (1)
work with local governments and communities in developing strategy to combat the production
and use of addictive drugs including meth and (2) develop a House Republican caucus policy on
eliminating meth use and treating addicts.

The meth problem is not unique to downstate Illinois. It is especially prominent in Illinois’ rural
areas because of the presence of anhydrous ammonia, an ingredient used in agriculture and also a
main ingredient in the production of the drug.

                        LOCATIONS OF TASK FORCE HEARINGS

During August and September 2004, the task force gathered testimony from area officials, drug
treatment providers, substance abuse counselors, law enforcement, recovering addicts and
community residents. The task force held its first hearing on August 3rd in Mattoon with
subsequent hearings taking place in Springfield, Normal, Rochelle, Effingham, Carthage,
Galesburg, Robinson, Cicero, East Peoria, Monticello, Freeport, Taylorville and Danville. The
purpose of the hearings was to ascertain what the state can do to assist communities to further
fight the manufacture, use and spread of meth.

                         THE DANGERS OF METHAMPETAMINE

Meth is one of the most highly-addictive of the illicit drugs. One to two uses can cause
incredible harm to the portion of the brain that controls cravings – leading to immediate
addiction. Complicating matters is the fact that the main ingredients used in the production of
meth can be easily obtained locally and the drug can be manufactured in a home or even a
vehicle.

Because of the availability of ingredients and ease of manufacture, local communities are on the
front line of this war against meth, and they need the help of the General Assembly to effectively
and efficiently combat this very serious problem, which is taking the lives and livelihood of
citizens across Illinois and ruining the families and children of those citizens.

Meth does not, however, just pose a danger to the addict. An insidious aspect of meth is that an
individual does not have to buy it or take it to be in danger. Because the chemicals used to cook
meth are very volatile, simply living near a home where it is being manufactured puts persons


                                                2
nearby at substantial risk of serious harm from fire, explosions, or toxic chemicals. Our hearings
elicited numerous instances of innocent bystanders, farmers, and first responders being hurt and
substantially harmed by meth manufacturing.

Montgomery County Under Sheriff Rick Robbins shared two of the worst instances of innocents
being harmed by meth. In two different instances, children had been tragically murdered by their
own parents while using meth. In each case, the child’s parent had reached the most dangerous
stage in the use of meth: the “tweaking” stage. During the tweaking stage, an addict has been
awake for days on end and begins to hallucinate. During this time, the addict is incredibly
agitated, increasingly paranoid, and violent. Commonly, a meth addict describes people as
having turned into “demons.” During this psychosis, they often lash out at anyone they come
into contact with – even their own children. First responders are in particular jeopardy. In some
cases the paranoia causes the individual to booby trap their home. Further, the uniforms worn by
first responders can cause paranoid reactions by the user.

Methamphetamine is nothing new. In fact, it has been around for most of the 20th Century. It
was used extensively by the Nazis during World War II to create robotic warriors. Meth gave
the Nazis a soldier who could go without sleeping for days, did not need to eat, and who were
hostile and incredibly aggressive. Interestingly, even the Nazis abandoned the use of meth after
their soldiers too often turned on each other during the tweaking stage.

The testimonial record underscores the extreme need for action to protect all of society from
meth.

                            METH PROBLEM IN ILLINOIS

                                      METH STATISTICS

According to the testimony of virtually all witnesses and participants at the hearings as well as
Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s website, meth is the fastest-growing drug in the United States
and poses the single greatest threat to Illinois’ rural communities. In fact, Illinois State Police
encountered 971 meth labs in Illinois in 2003, up from 403 in 2000. (See Appendix A). Those
figures represent a 141% increase in dismantled labs. Because the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) encountered an additional 128 meth labs that were not included in State
Police data, the actual number of meth lab encounters in 2003 jumped to a total of 1,099.
Additionally, because most labs are in rural areas, the number of actual labs is likely to be much
higher than the number of discovered labs.

Illinois is faced with a two-pronged meth problem:

     •   First, large quantities of meth produced by Mexico-based drug trafficking organizations
         are transported to the state. Drug trafficking organizations transport meth into Illinois,
         mostly from California and Mexico. The traffickers use the distribution channels for
         other illegal drugs. For over a decade, California has battled meth problems. There,
         meth is mass produced for distribution to the rest of the country in what are commonly
         known as “super-labs”. Outlaw gangs control most of the retail distribution of this


                                                 3
          extremely dangerous drug. Although there is little evidence that meth from this source
          is being distributed in the Chicago area, some foreign-produced meth destined for
          markets in other areas transits through Chicago.
     •    Second, and the major problem in downstate Illinois, are small-scale meth laboratories.
          These labs have proliferated in rural, farming areas due to the availability of anhydrous
          ammonia – an ingredient used in the most prevalent manufacturing method. These
          clandestine labs are typically operated by the users themselves. Most of the ingredients
          used to make meth – such as cold tablets, lithium batteries, and Coleman fuel – can be
          purchased at local drug, hardware, and farm supply stores. The best way to describe the
          appearance of a typical meth lab is that it looks not like a real laboratory, but more like a
          dirty kitchen.

          The fact that the users are the manufacturers is a serious consequence for policy makers.
          Traditional anti-drug policing strategies involve imprisoning the manufacturer and
          dealer while treating the addict. Here, the addict is the manufacturer – thus, turning
          traditional law enforcement strategies on their head. This means that we must develop a
          new strategy to confront meth addiction.

                           THE PRESENSE OF METH IN ILLINOIS

Meth is the principal drug of concern in the rural areas of central and southern Illinois (See
Appendix B). The proliferation of small, clandestine meth laboratories throughout the rural
areas forces law enforcement to expend a large amount of manpower and resources on
combating the lab problem. Most of the laboratories in the southern portion of the state use the
Birch production method, in which anhydrous ammonia is necessary. The theft of anhydrous
ammonia and the improper disposal of laboratory waste are both of great concern to small
farming communities.

While we have seen some evidence of meth in the suburbs, it is not yet prevalent in the City of
Chicago. As one State’s Attorney put it, “We have seen the tracks of the tiger, but not the tiger
itself.” Further, drug abuse and prevention coordinators testified that the use of meth in
suburban areas has been on the rise in the last two years. Clandestine lab manufactured meth has
not yet found its way into the City of Chicago. Nonetheless, the federal Drug Enforcement
Agency’s Operation Mountain Express III uncovered the transshipment of large quantities of
pseudoephedrine from Canada, through Chicago, to California, where it is was used to produce
meth in the “super-labs” managed by Mexican traffickers. Law enforcement has three theories
as to why Chicago has, to date, remained immune.

         1) The production of meth is not as easily accomplished in Chicago as it is in rural
            communities. The cooking stage of production carries a rather offensive stench and is
            easily detectable.

         2) One of the main ingredients for the easiest home-based meth recipe is anhydrous
            ammonia. This commodity is not as readily available in Chicago as it is in the
            agricultural based communities of downstate. It should be noted, however, that there
            are other methods of meth production that do not include the use of anhydrous



                                                   4
          ammonia. See below.

       3) Finally, and most convincingly, the drug gangs who control the distribution of
          Chicagoland drugs (cocaine/heroine/marijuana) are comfortable with their current
          market-share. They do not want meth introduced into their markets for two reasons:
              a) when a users ingests meth, they likely may not be using cocaine or heroin or
                 whatever drug the pusher is selling; and
              b) the gangs cannot control the production and distribution of meth, because it
                 can be easily made just about anywhere. The only way that the production of
                 meth from the clandestine labs can be controlled is to eliminate the producer.
                 In so doing, the gangs often open themselves up to even more severe criminal
                 charges. NOTE: Once the drug gangs determine a way to profitably
                 manufacture and distribute meth, its use and abuse will rise in Chicagoland.

Chicago law enforcement has indicated, however, that within Chicago’s gay community meth
use appears to be on the rise. The reason for this is that the user within this particular community
sees meth as a cleaner drug. That is to say that since meth can be consumed in a variety of ways;
the user does not necessarily have to inject the drug to obtain the effects of the high.
Consequently, addicts within the gay and lesbian community, feel that since they do not have to
inject this drug, then their risk of a dirty needle infection is reduced and the risk of contracting
any disease, including HIV/AIDS is reduced.

Strangely, however, our testimony indicates that the converse in true in downstate Illinois.
Intravenous meth use has risen along with the increase in meth’s popularity in downstate Illinois.
Thus, many of the public health professionals who testified are concerned that we may
have a lagging HIV/AIDS and hepatitis outbreak waiting in the wings in downstate Illinois.

                      ECONOMIC INCENTIVE VS. THE PURE HIGH

Part of the danger that comes from meth is that the incentive for its existence is not economic as
is the case for cocaine and other narcotics. With cocaine or heroine, a person may never actually
consume the product, but simply serve as a part of the distribution chain for the lucrative
business. By contrast, the primary meth manufacturing method is based on just the pure high –
little, if any, money exchanges hands.

In Illinois, most meth makers are meth addicts, and they make meth to feed their addiction.
Typically, Illinois meth makers are organized into loose-knit groups, or “cells,” of roughly a half
dozen meth addicts. The meth distribution system resembles a wagon wheel. Each individual
addict is at the end of a spoke. That individual has a defined role – usually, helping purchase
some of the precursors. The “spokes” then bring their ingredients back to the hub, which is
headed by a meth “cook” – a person who has learned the techniques for making meth. In return
for their contribution, the spoke receives some of the cook’s finished product. For example:

       • Some members of the cell may spend the better part of their time driving from store-to-
         store in order to steal or purchase pills containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine.
         After obtaining hundreds or thousands of these cold tablets, they return to the meth



                                                 5
        production site, give the pills to the meth cook who then combines them with the other
        ingredients to make meth.

       • Some members of the cell may spend the better part of their time driving around the
         countryside stealing anhydrous ammonia from farmers’ tanks, especially at night. After
         obtaining a sufficient quantity of anhydrous ammonia, they return to the meth
         production site, give the anhydrous ammonia to the meth cook who then combines it
         with the other ingredients to make meth.

       • Some members of the cell may spend the better part of their time stealing or buying the
         remaining equipment and chemicals needed to manufacture meth at local stores. After
         obtaining the appropriate supplies, they return to the meth production site, give the
         supplies to the meth cook who then combines it with the other ingredients to make
         meth.

Although a typical meth cook or one of his assistants may sell small quantities of meth to
persons outside the “cell,” the purpose of such sales is not usually to make a huge profit but
rather to obtain cash needed to purchase cold medications or other supplies needed to make more
meth. Additionally, each cook will eventually teach the spokes the various methods of cooking
meth – thus the spokes eventually become wheels themselves.

The bottom line is that meth is NOT big business in Illinois. Most meth makers are addicts
themselves, with limited resources at best – and the addicts will eventually themselves become
cooks. This is why the crystal meth problem in Illinois, and nationally, defies the normal drug
interdiction theory of treating the addict and imprisoning the dealer.

                                      FORMS OF METH

Typically, meth comes in the form of an odorless, bitter-tasting powder that dissolves easily in
water or alcohol. The powder may be white, yellow, pink, red, tan, or brown, depending on the
ingredients used to make it. There are hundreds of street names for meth, including speed, crank,
chalk, crystal, ice, glass, shabu, zip, pep-pills, and go-fast.

Meth is a totally synthetic drug. Synthetic drugs may be contrasted with naturally-occurring
drugs such as marijuana, which are cultivated rather than manufactured. The medical
community is finding that recovery from addiction to naturally occurring drugs is easier than
recovery from a totally synthetic drug like meth.

                              PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF METH

Meth is a powerfully addictive stimulant affecting the central nervous system. Meth tricks the
brain and body into thinking that it has limitless stamina while in fact draining critical energy
reserves needed to maintain the body’s vital organs and functions. Meth reduces the user’s need
to eat and to sleep. Consequently, meth produces bursts of energy and euphoria but ultimately
leads to severe depression, brain damage, physical deterioration, and – in some cases – violent
paranoia.



                                                6
Addicts often follow a progression of meth use in which they begin ingesting meth, then snorting
it, then smoking it, and then finally injecting it. No matter how meth is used, it tends to cause
increased activity, decreased appetite, and a false sense of well-being in the short term, followed
by damage to the brain, body, and central nervous system in the long term. Other deleterious
effects include severe tooth decay, physical frailty, skin breakdown (sometimes called “crank
bugs”), and a whole host of other physiological problems.

                                    TYPICAL METH USER

   •   The average meth user is a 34 year old white male.
   •   However, more and more, this distinction is falling off. In some of the testimony from
       counties that have had problems over a period of years, there has been a drastic increase
       in the number of females using meth. In some instances, up to 40% of the users were
       women. This, obviously, creates a secondary public health issue, in that most of these
       women are in their peak child rearing years. Indeed, 1/3 of Illinois’ meth lab busts last
       year were in homes with children present.
   •   Demographically, a meth addict is a lower- or middle-class white person in his or her 20's
       or 30's, living in a rural community. Although this description is technically accurate, it
       masks a great deal of variation in meth use. For example:
       • While meth use is concentrated in rural communities, its cousin Ecstasy is a popular
           “club drug” in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and other urban centers and college
           campuses across the country.
       • While the typical meth user belongs to the lower or middle class, meth addiction has
           afflicted upper-class Americans as well, including members of wealthy and
           prominent families.
       • While most meth users are in their 20's or 30's, meth use is on the rise among
           teenagers, and – at the other end of the age spectrum – it is not uncommon to
           encounter meth addicts in their 40's or 50's. Meth addiction will, however, eventually
           kill the addict.

It is becoming more and more typical that meth manufacturers and abusers do not own the
property on which they are producing and using meth. Many manufacturers and users make and
use the drug in rental property units. Examples of said rental units are the single family
dwelling, duplexes, multi-unit dwellings, and housing projects. Landlords and property owners
need to take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that their properties are not being used
for any illicit drug usage, including meth usage. Landlords also need to encourage their tenants
to not allow drug consumption in their units. It is recommended that landlords and property
owners who rent incorporate anti drug language into their leases. A sample Lease Addendum for
Drug-Free Housing and Agency Trespass Agreement is attached. (See Appendix C).




                                                 7
                             METH PRODUCTION METHODS

Recipes for meth vary widely and are readily available over the internet; two of the main forms
are described below. The actual processes have been truncated considerably so as to not promote
the production methods.

1) The “Nazi-Method”
      The most common meth “recipe” in Illinois is called the “Birch production method” or –
      more commonly – the “Nazi method” because the Nazi government used it during
      World War II (again, the Nazi’s used meth for the purpose of keeping soldiers awake for
      night time raids on the enemy and to reduce the need of the soldiers to eat. It was seen as
      a cost effective measure to prosecute the war).

2) “Red-P”
      A second method that is common in the western United States but less common in
      Illinois is known as the “red phosphorous” or “red-P” method.

In both cases, ephedrine or pseudoephedrine is transformed into meth by means of a chemical
reaction. A meth maker using the Nazi method brings about this chemical reaction by
combining the ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with two other ingredients: anhydrous ammonia (a
liquefied fertilizer) and lithium (a metal extracted from lithium batteries).

By contrast, a meth maker using the “red-P” method (less common in Illinois) produces meth
by combining ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with red phosphorous, iodine crystals, and water.
While these chemical reactions are the essential steps required to turn ephedrine or
pseudoephedrine into meth, both the Nazi method and the red-P method involve additional steps,
which are not described here, both before and after these chemical reactions. For a typical meth
cook in Illinois, using the Nazi method, the entire process of making a batch of meth lasts about
four hours from start to finish.

Whether a meth “cook” uses the “Nazi method” or the “red-P” method, he cannot make meth
without ephedrine or pseudoephedrine – substances found in Sudafed, Claratin, and other over-
the-counter cold medications that are widely available in local drug stores, supermarkets, and
truck stops. Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are to meth what flour is to bread – the essential
ingredient.

Not all products containing psuedoephedrine can be used to manufacture meth. Pfizer, Inc, the
manufacturer of the cold medicine sold under the brand name Sudafed has developed a non-
psuedoephedrine variant medication called Sudafed PE, which does not contain psuedoephedrine
and can be safely sold over the counter. It is strongly recommended that Sudafed PE be widely
distributed to retailers throughout Illinois in 2005 and beyond.




                                                8
                                     THE HARM OF METH

Meth destroys the mind – simply put: it kills brain cells. It kills the cells that control cravings, –
even after just one use, which is why meth is so very dangerous in its addictive nature. Medical
science knows that after several uses of meth, the brain literally resembles a block of Swiss
cheese because there are holes and vacant gaps in the brain tissue itself. The addict’s brain
resembles that of a stroke victim. Meth kills the brain and destroys the mind.

Meth destroys the body – by decreasing the appetite and the desire to sleep, thereby depriving the
body of energy. The meth user thinks that (s)he is invincible and can exist without eating or
sleeping and in fact goes without eating or sleeping for extended periods of time. The chemical
make up of the body is forced to retrieve energy from other sources to make up for what it is not
getting from food and rest. Consequently, the entire physical structure of the body is stressed
and the body begins to shut down functions. Meth kills the body.

Meth use harms the unborn – various physical problems are associated with meth use by
pregnant mothers. As the number of females using meth increases so will the public health
issues associated with the fetal development of their unborn children. If left unchecked, the
spread of meth will lead to “meth babies,” just like the “crack baby” epidemic of the 1980’s and
1990’s.

Meth spreads HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B and C – by the fact that meth is highly addictive and
lowers inhibitions thereby increasing the chances of unprotected sexual contact in exchange for
the drug. The meth user will literally do anything for more of the drug because it is so very, very
addictive. Consequently, conventional inhibitions are virtually wiped out of the mind of the
meth addict. Meth spreads disease.

Making meth is dangerous – because of the explosive nature of the poisonous chemical
ingredients used to manufacture meth. The testimonial record is fraught with stories of meth
manufacturing gone awry. For example, one of the ingredients is anhydrous ammonia. To
obtain the ammonia, one must steal it from tanks, usually found in farmer’s fields. Physical
contact with the ammonia can cause severe chemical burns and/or death to the person attempting
to steal it.

That is merely one example. The entire meth production cycle is extremely volatile because the
chemicals used are combustible. The record is replete with instances of meth lab explosions –
often involving death or serious injury. The smoke from the fire carries the toxic chemicals into
the air, making the surrounding area a hazardous waste site. Meth production causes death.

Meth labs and addicts endanger first responders and others – first responders include police
officers, firemen and women, medical personnel, Department of Children and Family Services,
and others. Additionally, postal carriers, family, farmers, friends and anyone else who is
unfortunate enough to come into contact with a meth lab or an addict are in danger.
Unfortunately, several innocents in Illinois have already been seriously harmed in the course of
performing their official duties as first responders and other lay people have been injured by
simply coming in contact with addicts or their labs.



                                                   9
It is easy to become injured because of the volatility of the meth lab and because of the fact that
the process of making meth turns the area into a hazardous waste sites. Furthermore addicts are
dangerous individuals. This is especially true when they are “tweeking” (when they are at the
stage of addiction where no amount of meth will satisfy their cravings). Addicts become
paranoid. The testimonial record elicited numerous instances where the meth addict booby-
trapped their own home to keep law enforcement out. In one tragic story, a meth addict coming
down from the “tweeking” stage stationed their young son underneath their home with a hunting
rifle with strict orders to shoot any law enforcement that came to the home. There is a grave
danger to anyone who encounters a meth lab or a meth addict.

Meth harms the environment – because the chemicals in the drug are poisonous to the
environment, i.e. plants, animals, ground soils, and waterways. A meth fire of a lab is in fact a
toxic waste site. It must be cleaned to the standards of the EPA – a very costly proposition.
Meth destroys the environment.

Meth saps resources – After law enforcement seizes a lab, the average cost of clean up for small
labs is approximately $5,000. Addditionally, law enforcement often racks up huge over-time
costs associated with securing the property during the clean up process. An arrested addict’s
medical condition also costs local governments. Several sheriffs testified that their health care
budgets had skyrocketed as meth addicts often needed a trip to the doctor and dentist after arrest
because of the poor physical condition they were in. The long term health affects are just
beginning to emerge. Meth and the problems related thereto provide heavy costs to our society.
For example:
        • Law enforcement lacks manpower to chase down the ever-growing number of meth
            labs popping up in rural communities. More and more tax dollars are spent battling
            meth on the front lines.
        • Prosecutor’s offices and the courts are inundated with increasing meth-related cases,
            thereby thinning out their resources.
        • Sheriff’s departments and local police departments are filled with meth offenders. In
            one instance, a downstate sheriff indicated that as much as 70-80% of his jail
            population on any given day was meth related.
        • Probation departments deal with the ever increasing number of meth offenders, yet
            only have so many officers.
        • Local treatment providers only have so many personnel, so many facilities, so many
            beds in those facilities to help the offenders stay clean of the drug.
        • Local communities and counties do not have enough money to constantly clean up
            meth labs, which are environmental and public health hazards at $5,000 - $10,000 per
            site.
        • Local law enforcement often spends precious overtime dollars on deputies who are
            simply maintaining a security perimeter around the site, while waiting for EPA
            licensed clean-up crews to arrive – something that can take several hours. During
            that time, this law enforcement officer is unable to respond to other security issues in
            the community.




                                                10
        LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS FOR ILLINOIS’ METH PROBLEM

I. NEW CRIMINAL LEGISLATION DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH METH

    1. MAKING POSSESSION OF ANY AMOUNT OF METH A CLASS X FELONY;
       INCREASE PENALTY FOR METH POSSESSION

      Unfortunately, a sentence of less than 3-6 years is of little value to a meth addict as
      they have not had enough time for their body to heal itself from the damage done by
      meth addiction. Aside from its other physically deleterious affects, meth use destroys
      brain cells. Brain scans of meth addicts can be compared to stroke victims who have
      lost significant portions of their brains. Just like a stroke victim, over time the other
      portions of the meth addict’s brain will gradually compensate for the lost brain tissue
      by taking on the functions that had been performed by the dead tissue. The problem is
      that this process can take 3-6 years.

      With this knowledge, any sentence of less than 3-6 years (be it a drug court sentence
      or a sentence to the Department of Corrections) is futile. This is why we are
      recommending raising for purposes of sentencing to the Department of Corrections the
      class of offense to a Class X felony.

      The designation of possession of ANY amount of meth as a Class X felony
      demonstrates society’s unwillingness to accept this drug in any fashion. A Class X
      felony carries with it a penalty of 6-30 years and a fine of $25,000 or more. This
      tough on crime approach is favored by many in the law enforcement community.

      Recognizing, however, the treatment potential of drug courts and the positive
      outcomes in terms of non-recidivism (see below), we further recommend that this
      sentence is made conditional for drug court sentencing purposes. In such a case, the
      abuser knows that if they do not take the steps necessary to comply with the
      requirements of the drug court, then they will face the imposition of a more serious
      and long lasting penalty.

      Further, the statute needs to be amended to provide for a prima facia case of Criminal
      Possession where an individual possesses 5 boxes or more of an over the counter
      precursor of meth without a prescription.

    2. COMMISSION TO DRAFT METH CONTROL ACT

      The General Assembly shall appoint a Commission with the sole purpose of drafting a
      model meth control act, which will address meth crime separate and apart from the
      Illinois Controlled Substances Act. The Commission will draft the meth control act as
      part of the Criminal Code.

      The Commission will consist of representatives of the four legislative caucuses, the
      Attorney General’s office, the Illinois Department of Corrections, the Illinois



                                           11
       State Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, the State Appellate Defender’s Office, the State’s
       Attorneys Association, and the Illinois State Bar Association. The Commission will
       exist for a designated amount of time and present its findings to the General Assembly
       and suggest language for the actual Act.

       While the Commission is doing the work necessary to develop language for a meth
       control act, the current Illinois Controlled Substance Act needs to be amended to
       address the issue of how a defendant is charged and ultimately sentenced on the basis
       of the weight of the meth found.

       The costs to the State for this proposal would be minimal.

     3. ADDITIONAL $100 FINE ON ALL DRUG CONVICTIONS

       Increase the criminal fine applied to all drug offenders by $100 per offender –
       regardless of the type of drug offense committed. The $100 will be allocated to the
       local law enforcement agencies to reimburse those agencies for the costs of securing
       and cleaning up the meth lab, to help defray the costs of employing a full-time or
       part-time officer with a local drug task force, over time costs, and/or costs associated
       with any medical/dental expenses incurred by the county resulting from the
       incarceration of the meth addict.

       This new fine is expected to generate approximately $1.3 – 2 million, based on the
       annual counts of Illinois felony and misdemeanor adjudications for which fines are
       imposed.

       In addition to the $1.3-2 million listed above, $3 million will be provided to the local
       authorities for the expenses listed.

     4. EXPAND RESTITUTION SECTION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

       The current restitution section of the code puts too much emphasis on costs associated
       with clean up (currently covered by a federal EPA grant). We propose allowing all
       costs to be recouped (i.e. over-time, cost of manpower to secure the site, as well as
       clean up costs). Further, we recommend that the circuit court clerks be required to
       prioritize payments in the following order: local, state, and federal government - thus,
       ensuring that local governments have an opportunity to be reimbursed for all of the
       costs expended in cleaning up a meth lab first.

II. DRUG COURTS

     1. INSTITUTE A STATEWIDE “DRUG COURT” SYSTEM

       Drug courts have been employed by several states as an effective tool in the fight
       against drug addiction. According to a 2003 study by the National Institute of Justice,
       in a sample of 17,000 drug court graduates nationwide only 16.4% had been rearrested



                                             12
and charged with a felony offense within a year of graduation. This is an incredible
statistic – as traditional incarceration rates in the Department of Corrections (DOC)
have substantially higher rates of recidivism. Recidivism rates from 2002 from the
DOC for traditionally incarcerated drug offenders was 45%. However, drug court
recidivism rates have not gone higher than 28 % after going through the program and
have been as low as 5%.

The institution of a state wide drug court program also makes sense as a matter of
fiscal concern. According to the Illinois Attorney General the annual cost of
incarceration per drug offender per year is $23,812; this is contrasted to the drug
court costs per drug offender per year, which varies, but which can be as low as
$2,000 per person per year.

The mission of the drug court program is to stop the abuse of drugs and related
criminal activity. Drug courts are a highly specialized team process that functions
within the existing Circuit Court structure to address nonviolent drug related cases.
They are unique in the criminal justice environment because they build a close
collaborative relationship between criminal justice and drug treatment professionals.
Drug courts can be administered in several different ways, but there are two common
forms of a drug court program:

    1) Deferred Sentencing – Defendants are found guilty of drug offenses, but are
       given opportunities to avoid certain sentences and even avoid incarceration if
       they comply with the requirements imposed by the court.

    2) Deferred Prosecution – The prosecution of the defendant is put on hold
       during the of court ordered treatment, as long as the defendant complies with
       and ultimately completes drug treatment.

Within a cooperative courtroom atmosphere, the judge heads a team of court staff,
attorneys, probation officers, substance abuse evaluators, and treatment professionals
all working in concert to support and monitor a participant's recovery. Together, they
maintain a critical balance of authority, supervision, support, and encouragement.

Drug court programs are rigorous, requiring intensive supervision based on frequent
drug testing and court appearances, tightly structured regimens of treatment, and
recovery services. Offenders are not just kept on a short leash, they are on a “choker
chain.” This level of supervision permits the program to actively support the recovery
process and react swiftly to impose appropriate therapeutic sanctions or to reinstate
criminal proceedings when participants cannot or do not comply with the program. If
a defendant does not comply with the requirements, the full sentence, including
incarceration, will be carried out.

Several counties in Illinois have instituted drug court programs. There is, however, no
statewide mandate to do so. Drug court participants have seen encouraging success
rates of staying off drugs. A statewide mandate for drug court programs could greatly



                                     13
  decrease not only the use and abuse of meth, but of all other illegal drugs. The
  mandate, however, should allow enough flexibility for the local counties/jurisdictions
  to set up their own drug courts to allow for the most effective resolution to the drug
  problems they face and in accordance with the resources available to them.
  Therefore, the State should roll out an aid program for drug courts aimed at helping
  an increasing number of counties and judicial circuits to create drug courts with the
  long-term goal of creating a statewide drug court system.

  Currently, Illinois falls short in state funding for drug courts. Consider the following
  chart of the seven states listed below from the National Drug Court Institute reporting
  2003 data on state drug court expenditures:

         State                       State Funding Amount for Drug Courts

      California                                     $15-$18 million
      New York                                       $9.4 million
      Oklahoma                                       $3.5 million
      Michigan                                       $2.4 million
      Ohio                                           $2.4 million
      Missouri                                       $2.0 million
      Illinois                                              0

  Illinois is clearly behind the curve in what is proving to be an effective policy for
  dealing with drug addiction. While it is true that there would be a short term fiscal
  impact on the state with this proposal, the long-term fiscal benefits from higher rates
  of non-recidivism greatly outweigh the costs associated with establishing the drug
  court system.

  As a legislative proposal, $10 million dollars will be allocated specifically for the
  establishment of drug courts.

2. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES – BEST PRACTICES STUDY

  Provide $500,000 to the Department of Human Services (DHS) and require that the
  agency conduct a “best practices” study for treatment of meth offenders.

  Many different treatment providers exist throughout the State. The different providers
  have different protocols in treating the meth addict. The State needs to be aware of
  what practices best serve the majority of the meth population so that the problem can
  be more efficiently addressed.

  This proposal requires that a report of the findings of the agency be provided to the
  General Assembly and the public for dissemination so that treatment providers as well
  as all citizens of Illinois can learn more about meth abuse and how to spot it and treat
  the disease.




                                        14
3. DHS – PILOT PROGRAM FOR INCREASED ACCESS TO METH TREATMENT

  Provide $10 million dollars for increased access to meth treatment and prevention
  programs.

  During the hearings, consistent testimony was provided about the lack of resources
  that the local jurisdictions have to fight the meth problem. Additionally, we learned
  that the average meth addict (i.e. a white male, age 34) is the last in line to receive
  treatment services – thereby compounding the problem.

  During the hearings there was consensus that more funds were needed to be placed in
  the two areas of treatment and prevention. Increased treatment and prevention makes
  greater sense not only for the addict but also for the State. As was pointed out at
  several hearing locations, for every dollar spent on treatment and prevention, the state
  saves seven dollars in prosecution and incarceration costs.

      1) Treatment – The testimony at the hearings concluded that substance abuse
      treatment is a very subjective practice. Different people require different
      treatment options. Some abusers need incarceration, while some will benefit from
      in-patient treatment at a treatment center. A primary problem for meth treatment
      is that there is no widely accepted “best practices” methodology.

      Further, and especially in rural areas, most counties and towns do not have
      treatment providers on site. Consequently, abusers who want to go through
      treatment may have a difficult time getting to the place of treatment. If the abuser
      has no car, the problem is compounded. Greater and more prevalent treatment
      options need to exist and the availability of transportation needs to be addressed.

      2) Prevention – An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. While the
      typical meth abuser has been identified previously, more and more young persons
      are being exposed to the drug. Meth is chemically similar to ecstasy and other
      “club drugs” that younger adults and teens are using. Meth is gaining popularity
      among teenage high school girls because it suppresses their appetite.
      Consequently teenage and younger adult females are among the fastest growing
      population of meth abusers.

  More resources are needed to educate young people about the dangers of this killer
  drug. More presentations in schools, churches and communities centers will help to
  get the message out that meth is an extremely dangerous drug. Additionally parents
  need to be educated to a greater extent so that they will know what signs to look for if
  meth abuse is suspected in the home. Parents need to be aware of the physical
  requirements needed for meth production. They also need to be aware to look for the
  sociological indicators that may show a meth abuser.

  Moreover, because the problem is not as prevalent in Chicagoland and Northern
  Illinois, more educational resources in those areas need to be implemented before it



                                        15
      becomes a serious problem.

    4. RESOLUTION THAT DPH CREATE A MODEL COMMUNITY-BASED ANTI-
       METH COORDINATION EFFORT

      Provide a resolution that Department of Public Health develop a model community
      coalition effort to fight meth abuse.

      It is well established that meth abuse is best treated via the efforts of many community
      agencies and entities, including but not limited to law enforcement, the courts,
      prosecuting and defense bars, probation offices, treatment providers (both secular and
      religious), local business, family, and friends.

      The northern Illinois counties, where meth has yet to take as strong a hold as in the
      central and southern counties, may not know the benefits of community-based efforts
      nor may they know how to go about establishing such protocols. A statewide model
      of community coalition efforts to fight meth will provide those counties with the
      knowledge and wherewithal to fight meth more effectively.

    5. DRUG COURT SEMINARS FOR JUDGES

      Provide $250,000 to the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AIOC) so that it
      may provide education seminars to judges throughout the state on how to effectively
      deal with drug courts and meth cases specifically.

    6. DRUG COURT SEMINARS FOR PROSECUTORS

      Provide $250,000 to the State Appellate Prosecutor’s Office so that it may also
      provide education seminars to prosecutors throughout the state on how to effectively
      deal with drug courts and meth cases specifically.

III. HELP LOCAL LAW ENFORCMENT AND FIREFIGHTERS AND RETAILERS

    1. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DRUG TASK FORCES

      Provide an additional $5 million in funding to the 21 drug task forces, squads,
      and metropolitan enforcement groups that exist throughout the state. The funding is
      to be specifically designated to assist law enforcement in the fight against
      meth and for the successful prosecution of meth offenders. The money shall be
      earmarked towards surveillance of meth labs, interdicting of meth labs, and
      prosecuting the cases that arise from these efforts.

    2. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS INSTITUTE FOR FIRE SAFETY (ISF) FUNDING

      Provide $2 million dollars to the Institute for Fire Safety at the University of Illinois
      and require that the Institute provide first responders with the practical knowledge



                                            16
  necessary to protect themselves when approaching and securing a meth lab.

3. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE METH HOTLINE

  Provide $500,000 for the establishment of a meth abuse hotline number within the
  Department of Illinois State Police (ISP). This hotline will be utilized by the public
  and law enforcement agencies to report suspected and/or actual meth labs sites or
  former meth lab sites.

  Additionally, testimony indicated an apparent lack of communication with regards
  to who to call to institute clean up of a clandestine lab. Everyone from Illinois Farm
  Bureau members to local law enforcement seemed confused on where and how to
  access help in cleaning up lab sites. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration,
  through federal clean up grants, has made itself available for help in the cleanup
  process. We recommend that this new hotline be available to make the appropriate
  contacts as well as follow up communications necessary.

4. ISP DEVELOPMENT OF A METH LAB REPORTING PROTOCAL

  Require that the ISP develop a protocol for one state-wide reporting mechanism for
  meth lab reporting. Agencies across the state provide different information when
  dealing with meth labs. If the state had one solid protocol for what information and
  data needs to be reported when dealing with meth labs, the securing and cleaning up
  of those labs would be more streamlined, efficient and effective.

5. DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOCOLS FOR DECLARATION OF FORMER METH
   SITES AS “CLEAN”

  At our hearings, we came upon a recurring question: what is the environmental
  standard for cleaning up a meth lab site? There is a strong public policy rationale for
  having a mechanism to declare a clandestine lab site “clean” of the poisonous
  chemicals that are part and parcel to meth production. We would hardly want an
  unsuspecting family with small children moving into an unclean apartment.

  The Drug Enforcement Administration will help with cleanup. However, we believe
  that the Illinois EPA should issue certificates of compliance once the clean up is
  completed pursuant to Federal EPA and DEA guidelines. Further, there need to be
  limitations on civil liability and lawsuits against property owners who have received
  such a certificate of compliance.

6. ENCOURAGE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONTINUE DOWNSTATE METH
   SUMMITS AND PROVIDE A STUDY COMPONENT TO P.A. 93-1008

  Draft a resolution recommending the Attorney General continue the meth related
  summits occurring throughout the state. Additionally, amend P.A. 93-1008 (SB 2244
  of the 93rd G.A.) and require that a study component be part of the requirements of



                                       17
       that public act. That Act restricted the sale of pseudoephedrine to 2 packages per sale.
       It is incumbent upon the state to determine the success of the Act in the reduction of
       access to pseudoephedrine. As such, a study component needs to be added to P.A.
       93-1008.

     7. ENCOURAGE THE DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF MEDICATION SUCH AS
        SUDAFED PE.

       Draft a resolution praising Pfizer, Inc. for developing Sudafed PE. Encourage Pfizer
       to distribute products containing PE throughout Illinois as quickly as possible.
       Encourage other pharmaceutical companies who market products containing
       psuedoephedrine to also develop PE-type products. Encourage those companies to
       work with retailers to encourage the public to use PE products. Encourage retailers to
       place those products containing psuedoephedrine behind the counter, while keeping
       the PE type products available to the general public. This resolution would apply
       only to the pill form of medications that contain psuedoephedrine, as the pill form,
       not the liquid gels, is the main source of the psuedoephedrine which manufacturers
       use to make meth.

     8. ENCOURAGE A NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE SALE OF
        PSUEDOEPHEDRINE

       Urge the Congress of the United States to enact legislation that provides for a single
       nationwide standard relating to the sale and distribution of products containing
       psuedoephedrine. The necessity for this nationwide legislation is because
       manufacturers and users of meth are crossing state lines every day to obtain the
       necessary ingredient psuedoephedrine for the most common type of meth production.
       If a national standard existed to uniformly limit the public’s access to
       psuedoephedrine across the country, then the manufacturers would be greatly hindered
       in their efforts to produce meth.

IV. HELP CHILDREN

     1. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD PROTOCOLS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
        CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF STATE
        POLICE, THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

       Some of the most disturbing testimony we heard came from those on the frontlines of
       dealing with meth’s insidious affects upon children. We heard numerous horror
       stories of what can only be considered breakdowns in protocol between various state
       and local agencies when a minor child was involved.

       As a result, meth specific protocols must be developed. The schools, DCFS, and law
       enforcement must all work together to develop these protocols. We wish that our
       hearing testimony was merely anecdotal; unfortunately, too many different instances
       of breakdown in communications between these different actors were observed



                                            18
      statewide. We must revisit this issue with the appropriate authorities to make sure that
      everyone is operating under the same guidelines.

      The testimony of treatment providers, law enforcement, and others about the effects of
      meth on children was very disturbing. The abuse and neglect that children of meth
      abusers suffer as a result of their parents’/guardians’ actions needs to be stopped and
      fully prosecuted. Additionally, a “best practices” protocol must be developed for
      individuals and agencies that come in contact with children from meth ravaged
      homes. Wendy Haight and Linda Kingery are well on their way to doing this through
      their study “In These Bleak Days: Parental Methamphetamine Abuse in a Rural
      Midwestern Community”.

      A close corollary to the above finding about protocols for schools is the lack of
      training for DCFS social workers. Because meth labs are often found in and around
      the home, we are very concerned for the physical well being of DCFS staff, probation
      officers, and other personnel who conduct home visits. Thorough training needs to be
      conducted for these employees. We are not at all convinced that the average DCFS
      employee in the course of a home visit, could actually spot a meth lab (or the indicia
      of such a lab) in order to protect their own lives, let alone the children living in the
      home. With one-third of Illinois meth lab busts in locations where children live,
      educating DCFS and other personnel on what to look for, is imperative not just for the
      employee’s own safety, but for that of the children whose well being they are charged
      to look out for.

    2. ISP AND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION “SCRATCH and SNIFF” CARDS FOR
       TEACHER TRAINING

      Require that the Illinois State Police develop a “scratch and sniff” card to be used in
      teacher training. Meth manufacturing has a very specific “smell” associated with it.
      Having teachers and school personnel trained in this could help detection of children
      who are regularly being exposed to meth labs.

V. HELP FARMERS

    1. PILOT PROGRAM – ANHYDROUS ADDITIVES

      Provide $7 million to the Department of Agriculture (DOA) to subsidize anhydrous
      ammonia additives.

      The agricultural community has been hit hard by the meth problem. Cooks often steal
      anhydrous ammonia from rural farm fields for use in meth production. As stated
      previously, the Nazi method of producing meth – very common to Central and
      Southern Illinois – uses anhydrous ammonia as one of its main components along with
      psuedoephedrine. Abusers and producers will go to any length to obtain this
      ingredient. Anhydrous ammonia itself is a very volatile and explosive agent. Stealing
      it is a very risky and dangerous endeavor; however, the abusers want meth so



                                           19
  anhydrous theft is rampant throughout downstate Illinois.

  Two substances, however, offer promise in this area. First, from a safety standpoint,
  GloTell (which was developed in Illinois), will be an asset to law enforcement and
  farmers in dealing with the meth abusers and producers. Anhydrous is generally kept
  in large tanks and is used primarily after the fall and spring harvest as a fertilizing
  agent for the next planting season. After a theft of anhydrous ammonia, a farmer may
  or may not know that an anhydrous ammonia tank has been breached, because the
  ammonia converts to a low lying gas. GloTell is a dying agent. GloTell will turn the
  ammonia a pink color. A farmer who comes upon a “tapped” tank in the field will
  have a visual pink warning before getting too close.

  Additionally, an anhydrous thief who handles the GloTell-treated ammonia carelessly
  will find their hands or any other part of the body the ammonia touches turning pink.
  This will give law enforcement a huge advantage in identifying those who may be
  illegally producing meth. The benefit to law enforcement is that they will be able to
  identify from a distance those persons who carelessly use GloTell treated anhydrous.

  The second product is so new that it has still not been identified and is in the final
  trial stages of production. It offers great hope for finally disassociating the family
  farmer from the meth problem. This new compound being developed by researchers
  at Iowa State University would render anhydrous ammonia chemically inert for
  purposes of manufacturing meth. This would be of great benefit to Illinois farmers, as
  it would eliminate the theft and safety issues that come along with meth cooks stealing
  anhydrous.

  Unfortunately, neither GloTell nor the other agent come without a cost. The current
  market price is about $9 per treated ton of anhydrous. The other compound could be
  applied for about $1 per acre. Understandably, however, these costs would seriously
  impact the average farmer’s bottom line (particularly, in an industry where the
  difference between profit and loss is measured in pennies per bushel). However, meth
  is a societal problem and to successfully combat it, we believe, the state should defray
  some of the costs of these substances.

  It is cautioned, however, that eliminating anhydrous ammonia from the cook’s
  kitchen does not eliminate meth. There are other ways of producing meth –
  anhydrous is simply the easiest and most common.

2. PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN FOR FARMERS

  Provide $400,000 to the Department of Agriculture for a public information campaign
  to farmers on the protocol to use when one encounters a suspected meth lab. The
  protocols will have many similar characteristics as to those found in other such
  protocols used by the public and law enforcement.




                                       20
3. RESEARCH AND SUBSIDIZE OTHER CHEMICALS MAKING ANHYDROUS INERT
   FOR METH PRODUCTION

  Provide $100,000 in grants for research and or testing of products that render the
  use of anhydrous ammonia inert in the production of meth.




                                       21
       Clandestine Meth Lab Encounters Reported by the
  Illinois State Police and Drug Enforcement Administration


  2000                                          2001
403 Encounters                             698 Encounters
  (ISP data only)




                              LEGEND
                              Number of
                              Encounters

                                     0
                                     2
                                    -1 0
                                     -
                                    12     40
                                     -
                                    14     60
                                     6
                                    0+
      Clandestine Meth Lab Encounters Reported by the
 Illinois State Police and Drug Enforcement Administration


  2002                                        2003
776 Encounters                            1,099 Encounters




                             LEGEND
                             Number of
                             Encounters

                                    0
                                    1 - 20
                                    21 - 40
                                    41 - 60
                                    60+
                                     Clandestine Lab Seizures
                                       Calendar Year 2001
                                           By County

County         # Labs County              # Labs County          # Labs County            # Labs
 Adams        19         Ford            0          Livingston   0          Randolph      1
 Alexander    7          Franklin        13         Logan        0          Richland      0    (1)
 Bond         0    (1)   Fulton          26         Macon        4          Rock Island   4
 Boone        0          Gallatin        11         Macoupin     19         Saline        10
 Brown        5          Greene          1    (4)   Madison      37         Sangamon      5    (6)
 Bureau       0    (1)   Grundy          6          Marion       4    (5)   Schuyler      2
 Calhoun      0          Hamilton        3          Marshall     0          Scott         0
 Carroll      5          Hancock         7          Mason        4          Shelby        6
 Cass         1          Hardin          2          Massac       9          St. Clair     4    (6)
 Champaign    2          Henderson       10         McDonough    24         Stark         0
 Christian    8          Henry           0          McHenry      0          Stephenson    0
 Clark        15         Iroquois        0          McLean       5          Tazewell      29
 Clay         18         Jackson         33         Menard       0    (1)   Union         30
 Clinton      0          Jasper          0          Mercer       2          Vermilion     2
 Coles        97         Jefferson       0    (6)   Monroe       3          Wabash        0    (1)
 Cook         1          Jersey          0    (1)   Montgomery   29         Warren        0
 Crawford     8          Jo Daviess      6          Morgan       3          Washington    0
 Cumberland   8          Johnson         6          Moultrie     1    (4)   Wayne         0    (1)
 De Witt      3          Kane            0          Ogle         0          White         7
 DeKalb       2          Kankakee        0          Peoria       1          Whiteside     12
 Douglas      1          Kendall         0          Perry        1          Will          0    (1)
 DuPage       0    (1)   Knox            2          Piatt        0          Williamson    47
 Edgar        0    (3)   La Salle        2          Pike         6          Winnebago     0
 Edwards      1          Lake            0    (1)   Pope         2          Woodford      2
 Effingham    1    (3)   Lawrence        1    (2)   Pulaski      7
 Fayette      7          Lee             1          Putnam       0    (1)

Total 2001 ISP Methamphetamine Seizures in Illinois: 666
Total 2001 ISP/DEA Combined Methamphetamine Seizures in Illinois: 698
                                     Clandestine Lab Seizures
                                       Calendar Year 2002
                                           By County

County         # Labs County              # Labs County          # Labs County            # Labs
 Adams        22         Ford            1          Livingston   2          Randolph      2
 Alexander    1          Franklin        5          Logan        7    (9)   Richland      0 (25)
 Bond         1    (4)   Fulton          10         Macon        2    (6)   Rock Island   6
 Boone        0          Gallatin        6          Macoupin     21         Saline        6
 Brown        1          Greene          3          Madison      52         Sangamon      11 (21)
 Bureau       0          Grundy          2          Marion       10         Schuyler      0
 Calhoun      0          Hamilton        5          Marshall     0          Scott         0
 Carroll      0    (2)   Hancock         14 (16)    Mason        4    (6)   Shelby        9
 Cass         0          Hardin          2          Massac       5          St. Clair     1    (4)
 Champaign    2          Henderson       6          McDonough    7          Stark         0
 Christian    18         Henry           5    (6)   McHenry      0          Stephenson    0
 Clark        10         Iroquois        0          McLean       3          Tazewell      52
 Clay         11         Jackson         57         Menard       0    (2)   Union         26
 Clinton      5    (6)   Jasper          1          Mercer       0          Vermilion     19
 Coles        50         Jefferson       0 (16)     Monroe       4          Wabash        0
 Cook         0    (3)   Jersey          1          Montgomery   26         Warren        0
 Crawford     2          Jo Daviess      3          Morgan       2          Washington    1
 Cumberland   4          Johnson         3          Moultrie     0    (1)   Wayne         7 (10)
 De Witt      1          Kane            1          Ogle         2          White         17
 DeKalb       1    (3)   Kankakee        0          Peoria       7 (10)     Whiteside     11
 Douglas      4          Kendall         0          Perry        2          Will          4
 DuPage       1          Knox            14 (16)    Piatt        0          Williamson    44
 Edgar        1    (2)   La Salle        1          Pike         8 (10)     Winnebago     0    (3)
 Edwards      0          Lake            0          Pope         1          Woodford      2
 Effingham    3    (7)   Lawrence        1    (2)   Pulaski      1
 Fayette      2          Lee             3          Putnam       0    (1)

Total 2002 ISP Methamphetamine Seizures in Illinois: 677
Total 2002 ISP/DEA Combined Methamphetamine Seizures in Illinois: 776
                                     Clandestine Lab Seizures
                                       Calendar Year 2003
                                           By County

County         # Labs County              # Labs County          # Labs County            # Labs
 Adams        22         Ford            0          Livingston   0          Randolph      3    (4)
 Alexander    1          Franklin        14         Logan        13         Richland      0    (5)
 Bond         7          Fulton          8          Macon        0    (1)   Rock Island   11
 Boone        0          Gallatin        31         Macoupin     55         Saline        6    (7)
 Brown        1          Greene          0    (1)   Madison      90         Sangamon      14 (22)
 Bureau       2          Grundy          2          Marion       17         Schuyler      1    (2)
 Calhoun      0          Hamilton        18         Marshall     2          Scott         0
 Carroll      2    (5)   Hancock         11 (25)    Mason        11         Shelby        21
 Cass         7          Hardin          0          Massac       1          St. Clair     8
 Champaign    7          Henderson       4    (6)   McDonough    1          Stark         0
 Christian    17         Henry           6          McHenry      0          Stephenson    0
 Clark        8 (10)     Iroquois        0          McLean       0    (3)   Tazewell      41
 Clay         7          Jackson         44         Menard       0          Union         40
 Clinton      6    (7)   Jasper          0          Mercer       1    (2)   Vermilion     45
 Coles        72         Jefferson       1 (33)     Monroe       4          Wabash        1
 Cook         0    (2)   Jersey          1          Montgomery   20         Warren        0
 Crawford     4    (8)   Jo Daviess      0          Morgan       1    (3)   Washington    7
 Cumberland   2          Johnson         3          Moultrie     11         Wayne         25
 De Witt      1          Kane            0    (1)   Ogle         0    (1)   White         27 (63)
 DeKalb       0          Kankakee        2          Peoria       10         Whiteside     10 (11)
 Douglas      14         Kendall         0    (1)   Perry        1    (2)   Will          2
 DuPage       0          Knox            25         Piatt        0          Williamson    86
 Edgar        0          La Salle        2          Pike         13         Winnebago     1    (4)
 Edwards      2    (3)   Lake            0          Pope         0          Woodford      5
 Effingham    7          Lawrence        0          Pulaski      0
 Fayette      1          Lee             4    (5)   Putnam       0

Total 2003 ISP Methamphetamine Seizures in Illinois: 971
Total 2003 ISP/DEA Combined Methamphetamine Seizures in Illinois: 1,099
                LEASE ADDENDUM FOR A DRUG-FREE HOUSING

In consideration of the execution or renewal of a lease of the dwelling unit identified in
the lease, Owner and Resident agree as follows:

   1. Resident, any members of the resident’s household or a quest or other person
      under the resident’s control shall not engage in criminal activity, including drug-
      related criminal activity, on or near the said premises. “Drug-related criminal
      activity” means the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, use, or possession with
      intent to manufacture, sell distribute, or use of controlled substance (as defined in
      Section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act [21 U.S.C. 802]).

   2. Resident, any member of the resident’s household or as a guest or other person
      under the resident’s control shall not engage in any act intended to facilitate
      criminal activity including drug-related criminal activity, on or near the said
      premises.


   3. Resident or members of the household will not permit the dwelling unit to be used
      for or to facilitate criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity,
      regardless or whether the individual engaging in such activity is a member of the
      household, or a guest.

   4. Resident or members of the household will not engage in the manufacture, sale, or
      distribution of illegal drugs at any locations, whether on or near the dwelling unit
      premises or otherwise.


   5. Resident, any member of the resident’s household, or a guest or other person
      under the resident’s control shall not engage in acts of violence or threats of
      violence, including but not limited to the unlawful discharge of firearms, on or
      near the dwelling unit premises.

   6. VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE PROVISION SHALL BE A MATERIAL
      VIOLATION OF THE LEASE AND GOOD CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OF
      TENANCY. A single violation of any of the provisions of this added addendum
      shall be deemed a serious violation and material non-compliance with the lease.
      It is understood and agreed that a SINGLE violation shall be good cause for
      termination of the lease. Unless otherwise provided by law, proof of violation
      shall not require criminal conviction but shall be by a preponderance of the
      evidence.


   7. In case of conflict between the provisions of this addendum and any other
      provisions of the lease, the provisions of the addendum shall govern.
   8.    This LEASE ADDENDUM is incorporated in to the lease executed or renewed
        this day between Owner and Resident.



____________________________________                   Date: ___________________
Resident Signature




____________________________________                   Date: ___________________
Property Manager’s Signature



                            ____________________________________
                                       Property Address
                              Agency Trespass Agreement

This agreement, made and executed this ______the day of ______, 20__, by
___________, of __________ as ______________ located at ______________ and by
Deputy __________as agent of the County of Henry, IL, provides as follows:

Section 1 – Purpose of Agreement
It is recognized that in certain situations of the use of Henry County Deputy’s to control
certain activities on private property within the limits of Henry County being conducted
by non-residents of the property may be desirable and necessary on order to preserve and
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

Section 2 – Power and Authority
       (a) I, ______________, as ______________, do hereby authorize and grant the
           County of Henry, as my agent, the power to control non-resident persons who
           enter and remain upon any property located at ______________, City, in the
           County of Henry.
       (b) The County of Henry specifically has the power to approach persons located
           on the property and to order them to leave the property and not return if they
           are non-residents. The County of Henry shall also have the power to cause
           non-residents to be arrested if they refuse to leave the property or if they
           return after being warned to vacate the premises. The County of Henry, as my
           agent, shall also have the power to sign criminal complaints against non-
           residents.
       (c) I, _______________, as ______________, hereby agree that I will cooperate
           with the County of Henry in any criminal prosecutions that may arise from the
           County of Henry’s exercise of the authority granted by this agreement.
       (d) The County of Henry as agent, does hereby authorize its Deputy’s to control
           persons entering upon the property located at ______________, City, of
           Henry County, IL. The Deputy’s are hereby authorized to approach persons
           located on the property to determine if they reside on the property. Said
           Deputy’s are empowered to arrest non-residents who refuse to leave or after
           receiving notice, return without permission of the ______________ at a later
           date, and said Deputy’s are also empowered to sign criminal complaints
           against these individuals on behalf of the ______________.

Section 3 – Effective Date of Agreement
       (a) This agreement shall be in full effect and legally binding upon such time as
           signed and certified by each party.
       (b) The Sheriff of Henry County will retain the original signed agreement and
           will be responsible for the circulating such agreement for the proposes of
           signature and record.

Section 4 – Termination of Agreement
       (a) This agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall terminate on
           __________.
       (b) This agreement is also terminable by either party up0on 24 hours notice, in
           writing, to the other party.



_________________________________                   ______________________________
Deputy                                              Agent/Address/Phone



Subscribed and sworn before this ______th day of __________, 20__.



__________________________________                  _______________
(Witness)                                           (Date)
              Methamphetamine Crisis Task Force – Witness list

Rep. Chapin Rose – 110th
Date: 08/03/04
Location: Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center
Testimony:
       Mark Phelan – Coles County Farm Bureau Manager
       J. Tom Donnell – Coles County Farm Bureau
       Ron Black – Superintendent - Oakland Cus D #5
       Dave Chambers – ECITF Inspector
       Pamela P. Irwin, Ph.D. – Exec. Dir. - Central East Alcoholism & Drug Council
       Tim J. Willis – ECITF/ISAAP Drug Prosecutor
       Charlie McGrew – Concerned Citizen
       Deborah Martin – Coles Co. Meth Awareness Coalition/Homeless Case Manager
       Mitch Strader – Captain - Mattoon Fire Department
       Judy Brown – Clinical Director - Human Resources Center of Edgar/Clark Co.
       Donna Libbey – Retired Addictions Counselor
       Darrell Cox – Chief Deputy - Coles County Sheriff
       Pat McCallister, Ph.D. – Eastern Illinois University Professor
       Peggie Powers – Project Coordinator - Illinois Alcoholism and Drug
                        Dependence Association (IADDA)
       Tony Crouch – President - Oakland Community Anti-Drug Coalition


Rep. Dan Brady – 88th
Date: 08/05/04
Location: Normal City Police Training Room
Testimony:
       Rick Robbins – Under sheriff - Montgomery County
       Peggie Powers – Project Coordinator - IADDA
       Alan Markwood – Prevention Project Coordinator - Chestnut Health Systems
       Alan Sender – Chief Operating Officer - Chestnut Health Systems
       Lorce Adams – Director of Youth Services - Chestnut Health Systems


Rep. Bob Pritchard – 70th
Date: 08/10/04
Location: Rochelle City Hall
Testimony:
       Jane Billeter, M.D. – EMS Medical Director
       Michael D. Flora – President/CEO - Ben Gordon Center
       Thomas Miller – Oregon Chief of Police
       Jane Biddle – Community Development Specialist with ICCS
       Gregory Beitel – Chief Deputy - Ogle County Sheriff’s Office
       Mary Jane Bicksler – Regional Administrator - IL. Coalition for Community
                             Services
       Karrie Anna McClung – Prevention Specialist/Project X
       Cathe Dixon – Local Office Administrator - IL. Dept. of Human Services
       Natalie Andrews – Addictions Services Director - Sinnissippi Centers Inc.
       Christine Blahe – Rosecrance Senior Community Relations Representative
       Peggie Powers – Project Coordinator - IADDA
       Daria DeHaan – Lieutenant - Oregon Police Dept.
       Andy Thompson – Prevention Specialist - Sinnissippi Centers Inc.
       Hollie Schultz-Knop – Prevention Specialist - Sinnissippi Centers Inc.


Rep. Rich Myers – 94th
Date: 08/17/04
Location: Carl Sandburg College – Carthage Campus
Testimony:
       Brent Fischer – Sheriff - Adams County
       Shelle Fecht – Public Service Administrator - DCFS
       Justin Lundgren – McDonough Co. Deputy Sheriff - Narcotics Enforcement
       Michael Richardson, Ph.D. – Great River Recovery Resources Associate Director
                                     For Clinical Services
       Michael Johnson – McDonough County Sheriff


Rep. Bill Mitchell – 87th
Date: 08/19/04
Location: East Peoria City Hall Council Chambers
Testimony:
       Peggy Powers – Project Coordinator – IADDA
       Angie Huss – DCFS (Pekin)
       Bill Karr – DCFS (Peoria)
       Mark Piquard – Detective - City of East Peoria
       Keith McElyea – MEG Unit – City of East Peoria
       Mike Vaughn - Fire Dept. – City of East Peoria


Rep. Frank Aguilar – 24th
Date: 08/24/04
Location: Cicero Town Hall Courtroom
Testimony:
       Regina Rossetto – Program Director - Family Service & Mental Health Center
                        Of Cicero
       Raymond Hamilton – Lieutenant - Chicago P.D – Narcotics & Gangs Division
       Eddy Barrayo – Substance Abuse Director - Pilsen-Little Village Community
                      Mental Health Center, Inc.
       Sandy Cervenka – Outreach Coordinator - Girl Scouts of America
Rep. Don Moffitt – 74th
Date: 08/26/04
Location: Galesburg City Council Chamber
Testimony:
       John Cratty – Galesburg Fire Chief
       David Clagille – Lieutenant - Galesburg Police Department
       Peggie Powers – Project Coordinator – IADDA
       Gib Cady – Henry County Sheriff
       John McCarey – Special Agent – Liquor Control
       Pat Fox – Concerned Citizen
       William Munson – Concerned Citizen
       Vicki Drake – Project X Coordinator
       Tony Mills – Clinical Case Coordinator – Fayette Companies
       Al Smith – R.S.E.S Director
       Tom Godfrey – Road Commissioner
       Rick Gower – EMS Administrator


Rep. Roger Eddy – 109th
Date: 08/31/04
Location: Robinson Community Center
Testimony:
       Beth Kind – Lawrence County Anti-Drug Coalition
       Gerald (Dean) Kelly – Lawrence County Anti-Drug Coalition
       Dan Lybarger – Lawrence County Anti-Drug Coalition
       Ken Kimmel – ‘Just For Today’ Narcotics Anonymous Support Group
       Jay Holtzhouser – Crawford County Attorney
       Warren LeFever – Concerned Citizen
       Tamorah Everding – Hazardous Emergency Response Organization, Inc.
       Bill Ackman – Chief Deputy – Crawford County Sheriff’s Office
       Jerry Parsley – Clark Co. Sheriff
       Todd Liston – Crawford County Sheriff
       Rich Wilson – C.A.M.A.
       Ron Langeuia – General Manager – Paris Metal Products
       Ann Sutton – Substance Abuse Counselor – Human Resources Center of Edgar &
                     Clark Counties
       Michael Wilson – Chief – Marshall Police Department
       Steve Benefier – C.A.M.A.
       Roger Hopper – Edgar County Drug Task Force
       Kristin Chittick – C.A.M.A.
       Ralph Weisheit, PhD. – Professor of Criminal Justice – Illinois State University
       Mark Shaner – Crawford County State’s Attorney
Rep. Rich Brauer – 100th
Rep. Raymond Poe – 99th
Date: 09/02/04
Location: State Capitol Building
Testimony:
       Linda Kingery – Child Protection Investigator – DCFS
       Dawn Dannenbring-Carlson – Central Illinois Organizing Project
       Bob Leach – Associate Director – Wells Center
       Dave Dierks – Community Behavioral Healthcare Association
       Rebecca Ward – Intervention Specialist – Project X/Wells Center
       Michael Parkin – Child Protective Investigator – DCFS
       David Lenartowicz – Special Agent – Drug Enforcement Agency
       Jody Tracy – Parent of Meth addict
       Joe Powell – Mayor – City of Auburn
       Jim Birge – Manager – Sangamon County Farm Bureau
       Peggie Powers – Special Projects Coordinator – IADDA
       Donald Kliment – Chief of Police – Springfield Police Department
       Rick Robbins – Under sheriff – Montgomery County
       Jennifer Shostak – Counselor - Pike County Meth Drug Court


Rep. Chapin Rose – 110th
Date: 09/09/04
Location: Monticello City Hall
Testimony:
       Linda Kingery - Child Protection Investigator – DCFS
       Jim Black - Child Protection Investigator – DCFS
       Wendy Haight - Child Protection Investigator – DCFS
       John Pilad – Champaign County States Attorney
       Sanora Decker – Douglas County Sheriff
       Leonard Rumery – Piatt County States Attorney
       Rob Karr – Illinois Retail Merchants Association
       Fred Perry – President – Piatt County Farm Bureau
       Melanie Ishmael – Project X Coordinator
       Kevin Nolan – Assistant Public Defender – Champaign County
       Robert Maninet – Piatt County Sheriff
       John Miller – Chief of Police – Monticello
       Kent Holsopple – Administrator – TASC


Rep. Ron Stephens – 102nd
Date: 09/14/04
Location: Heartland Dental Care Building (Effingham)
Testimony:
       John Monnet – Sheriff – Effingham County
       Peggie Powers – Special Projects Coordinator – IADDA
       Larry Mizell – Executive Director – Provider Action Committee
       David Reis – Farmer/Concerned Citizen
       Daphne Paras – Project X Coordinator
       Cheryl Compton – Executive Director – Heartland Human Services/Clay County
                         Anti-Meth Coalition
       Kaye DeSelms – Richland County State’s Attorney
       Mary Fulton – Substance Abuse Program Director – Community Resource Center
       Denise Dawn – Executive Director – Community Resource Center


Rep. Jim Sacia – 89th
Date: 09/16/04
Location: Stephenson County Farm Bureau
Testimony:
       Daria DeHaan – Lieutenant – Oregon County Police Department
       Brenda Bombard – Executive Director – Sojourn House, Inc.
       Dennis Bergman – Chief – Lena Fire Department
       Jeff Doran – Sheriff – Mt. Carroll
       Mary Jane Bicksler – Regional Administrator – IL Coalition Community Services
       Natalie Andrews – Director of Addictions – Sinnissippi Center, Inc.
       Todd Welch – Sergeant – Stephenson County Sheriff’s Office
       Anne Cox – Jane Addams Family Counseling Center/Intouch Program
       Beth Johnson - Jane Addams Family Counseling Center/Intouch Program


Rep. Bill Mitchell – 87th
Date: 09/21/04
Location: Taylorville City Council Chambers
Testimony:
       Rodney Davis – Office of Congressman Shimkus
       Earl Walters – Alderman – Taylorville
       Ted Chapman – Counselor – Alcohol Chemical Treatment Services
       Brad Paisley – Concerned Citizen
       Bob Kinderman – Christian County Sheriff’s Office
       Randy Myers – Community Organizer – IL Coalition for Community Services
       Michael Pankin – Child Protection Investigator – DCFS
       Jennifer Shostak – Drug Court Counselor – Pike County Meth Drug Court
       Kent Gray – Candidate for State’s Attorney
       Jeanne Coventry – Chapter Leader – Mothers Against Methamphetamine
       Brian Hile – Inspector – Drug Task Force – Taylorville Police Department
Rep. Bill Black – 104th
Date: 09/30/04
Location: Vermilion County Courthouse Annex
Testimony:
       Alicia Kawa – Hospital Relations Liaison – Provena Central Illinois Region
       John Novotny – Producer – Findley Films
       Sue Williams – Concerned Citizen
       Bradley Luken – Manager – Champaign County Farm Bureau
       Betty Seidel – Director of Development – Prairie Center Health Systems
       Kerry Wienke – Executive Director – Vermilion County Farm Bureau
       Michael Clary – Circuit Court Judge
       Peggie Powers – Special Projects Coordinator – IADDA
       Dee Ann Ryan – Executive Director – Vermilion County Mental Health Board
       Bruce Barnard – Associate Director – Prairie Center
       Laura Williams – Co-Chair – Vermilion Prevention Coalition
       Dave Chambers - ECITF Inspector
Illustration 1.1
Common ingredients/tools used to manufacture Methamphetamine




     Illustration 1.2
     Portable Methamphetamine lab                              1
        Illustration 2.1
        Components of a Methamphetamine lab




                                     Illustration 2.3
                                     Bag of Methamphetamine


Illustration 2.2
Methamphetamine in solution
                                                              2
   Illustration 3.1
   10.7 grams of Methamphetamine




Illustration 3.2
Biohazardous byproducts of Methamphetamine manufacturing   3
   Illustration 4.1
   Before and after use of Methamphetamine




Illustration 4.2
The green areas are brain areas not being activated


                                                      4
                                             Illustration 5.1
                                             The top picture is a normal
                                             brain with red transmission
                                             through the mid brain. In
                                             the middle picture, brain
                                             connections have been
                                             broken. That means you no
                                             longer have control over your
                                             temper or motivation level.
                                             Twitches, tremors and muscle
                                             spasms are present. You can’t
                                             eat or sleep. The last picture
                                             shows how brain connections
                                             can be eventually restored
                                             after meth abstinence for a
                                             minimum of 12-18 months.




Illustration 5.2
The red areas depict the most severly damaged brain tissue. The
blue areas depict healthy brain tissue.

                                                                        5

				
DOCUMENT INFO