Court Opinion

ID: 9684089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:46:24.161289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:52.697856
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion by
Justice GRAVES.
Respectfully, I must dissent because of the unsoundness of the majority’s interpretation and application of KRS 218A. 1432. Such a narrow and unreasonable interpretation of a chemical concept has a destructive effect on the enforcement of drug laws. The majority is reversing the conviction of an individual caught red-handed in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. In Kotila v. Commonwealth, Ky., 114 S.W.3d 226, 237 (2003), I was part of the majority that was seduced by a metaphysical infatuation which led to an absurdity. Our opinion in Kotila does violence to the concept of common sense.
Methamphetamine can be produced under several methods. Chemically speaking, the essential, indispensable, *382and necessary chemicals are ephedrine (or psuedoephedrine) and a reducing agent to remove an oxygen atom.
There are several other pathways for the reaction to occur, using other precursors for reduction, and most certainly there are a variety of solvents that could be effectively used. This is a simple oxidation reduction reaction which is taught in elementary chemistry. There are multiple chemicals that can serve as reducing agents. Thus, to say that all the necessary catalysts, reducing agents, and solvents must be present has opened up a real can of worms.
There are multiple chemicals including water and alcohol that are merely used as solvents for an extraction process. To list all of them would make the statute unwieldy.
I think a more reasonable common sense application of the statute is that the statute is satisfied if the defendant is apprehended with ephedrine and a reducing agent.
Wintersheimer, J., joins this dissenting opinion.