Sentencing commission hears experts split on whether meth purity should drive punishments

The U.S. Sentencing Commission convened a public hearing focused on whether the guideline distinction that increases penalties for ‘‘actual’’ or ‘‘ice’’ methamphetamine versus ‘‘mixture’’ still matches how meth is produced, trafficked and used today. Chair Carlton W. Reeves opened the session saying, “Answering those question is why we are here today.”

Experts called to testify were sharply divided on whether purity remains a useful proxy for culpability. Drug Enforcement Administration witnesses and state and local law enforcement told commissioners that seized methamphetamine is now routinely extremely pure and that purity no longer reliably separates low‑level sellers from higher level traffickers. Jonathan Fairbanks, a DEA supervisory special agent, said in his testimony that his regional forensic data show seized methamphetamine “range between 78% to 98% with an overall purity mean of 87.46%” and that demand for high‑purity product has driven production methods toward industrial‑scale, high‑purity output. DEA forensic chief Scott Olten described laboratory burdens tied to isomer and purity testing, saying DEA analyzes roughly 16,000 meth exhibits per year and that conducting isomer/purity testing adds roughly 16,000 labor hours and about $740,000 annually in equipment and supplies.

State and local law enforcement echoed those observations. Mark Delaney of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation told commissioners Tennessee…