Meth proposal sensible in spirit (Colorado)

http://www.lovelandfyi.com/opinion-story.asp?ID=3840
Loveland, Colorado
Methamphetamine residue is dangerous.

Thus, Sen. Brandon Shaffer’s push for requiring disclosure to potential buyers that a house has been used in methamphetamine production is sensible.

Meth is made by mixing and cooking products such as nail polish remover, iodine, cold medicine, drain cleaner and paint thinner, which creates toxic fumes that seep into floors, carpets, walls and ceilings. The leftover chemicals eat holes in cement. Breathing in the fumes has sickened and killed people. Meth addicts deteriorate over time — their hair and teeth fall out, red sores break out over their faces.

People who have later lived in homes where the drug was made have reported feeling ill.

No one in his or her right mind would want to live in a house or apartment where meth was produced without knowing the danger. That’s what Senate Bill 06-002 speaks to.

Unfortunately, the bill would punish responsible property owners who have spent thousands of dollars to clean up meth residue after discovering that their house, condo or hotel had been used in the drug’s production. Getting rid of meth residue can mean that floors, walls, vents and ceilings must be torn out and replaced.

Owners who have paid to have that done argue that their property values will plummet with the stigma of having “meth house” permanently attached to their buildings.

“If people are following the prescriptions and regulations, pretesting and post-testing (to remove methamphetamine residue,) I would say that they are cleaner than most houses,” said Michael J. Richen, a Boulder County Public Health indoor air quality specialist.

Shaffer’s bill says only that the seller “represents and warrants that the property” has or has never “been used as a methamphetamine laboratory.” Along with disclosure that the drug had been made in the house, the law could easily require that the seller say whether meth residue had been removed to the satisfaction of a public health department.

The other consequence of the legislation, as proposed, would be to require that all homeowners test for methamphetamine if the house had ever been rented or owned by another person.

Law enforcement leaders believe only one in 10 meth labs is ever discovered. To make sure a homeowner wasn’t selling a property where a clandestine lab had operated, testing, which could cost as much as $2,500, would have to be done. Not every homeowner can afford that surcharge.

Lawmakers could write in rules saying that a homeowner checked with police, neighbors and did due diligence in determining whether the house had ever been used in meth production.

Shaffer has the right idea. People should not have to unwittingly buy a home where a meth lab operated, but a few tweaks could make the law better.