88-Year-Old Inventor Hassled By the DEA

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."

Comments

Not just meth

[Anonymous Coward]

It can also be used to create an explosive compound that shall remain nameless.

Re:Not just meth

[sortius_nod]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

It can also be used to create an explosive compound that shall remain nameless.

Why should it be nameless?

Nitrogen Triiodide

Censorship will never prevent misuse, only perpetuate ignorance. It is better to explain that this compound explodes violently, and at the smallest touch (starts at about 1:00).

Re:Not just meth

[MichaelSmith]

Laser printer toner is a great explosive. As is flower.

Re:Not just meth

[JosKarith]

I'm guessing you don't live in the UK where this kind of reactionary "OMG someone got hurt let's ban something" vote-chasing by our politicians is a daily fact of life.

Re:Not just meth

[DavidTC]

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.

Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary

[schnell]

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:

• The DEA doesn't think he's running a meth lab, they think people who run meth labs are buying his product to use.
• The DEA has started keeping a much tighter rein on the active ingredient in his product in order to keep it out of the hands of the aforementioned meth labs (just like they did a couple years back with buying decongestants using psuedoephedrine). His response was:
• He was supposed to pay $1200 for a license to handle this chemical and refused.
• He was asked to keep tabs on who bought the product to the extent that he would report "suspicious" bulk purchasers. He refused.
• The DEA asked him for proof that he has security where his product is made to keep people from stealing the active ingredient. He sent them a picture of his dog sitting in front of his garage.
• He also does not appear to be able to tell the difference between the DEA and the TSA, as the article points out. This does not suggest he is good at dealing with bureaucracy.

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."

Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary

[galaad2]

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:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary

[JWSmythe]

    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

[logicnazi]

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

[dcollins]

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

Re:Yet Another Terrible Flamebait Slashdot Summary

[Overzeetop]

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:Motherfuckers.

[jcr]

Gary Johnson disqualified himself when he said he'd continue to violate the constitution by keeping prisoners in gitmo without trial.

-jcr

The list of controlled chemicals

[Animats]

Here's the DEA's list. 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.

[cos(0)]

He seems to have clarified / changed his mind: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy
(Thanks for bringing that up... I didn't know he ever said that.)

Re:Land of the Dream?

[superwiz]

No, did you even read the summary? He was denied the license. He didn't refuse to file for a license. He was denied. The gp's point is right on the money.

Re:Motherfuckers.

[jcr]

Ron Paul's position on evolution is that it happens, and that it's not the whole story. He makes this clear in his book, Liberty Defined:

The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe.

In a nutshell, it's the same position that the Anglican church reached in the decade or so after Darwin published the Origins of Species.

-jcr

Re:There's also no real safe recreational dose for

[dcollins]

"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/

Re:Am I the only one who thinks he's an idiot?

[serviscope_minor]

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.