ILCS » Chapter 720 · Act 646
Illinois Compiled Statutes

720 ILCS 646/5 (2026)

Purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 646/5)
    Sec. 5. Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to reduce the damage that the manufacture, distribution, and use of methamphetamine are inflicting on children, families, communities, businesses, the economy, and the environment in Illinois. The General Assembly recognizes that methamphetamine is fundamentally different from other drugs regulated by the Illinois Controlled Substances Act because the harms relating to methamphetamine stem not only from the distribution and use of the drug, but also from the manufacture of the drug in this State. Because methamphetamine is not only distributed and used but also manufactured here, and because the manufacture of methamphetamine is extremely and uniquely harmful, the General Assembly finds that a separate Act is needed to address the manufacture, distribution, and use of methamphetamine in Illinois.
(Source: P.A. 94-556, eff. 9-11-05.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: People v. McCarty, 858 N.E.2d 15 (Ill. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. McCarty, 858 N.E.2d 15 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 2× “September 11, 2005 (adding 720 ILCS 646/5) (finding that "the manufacture of methamphetamine is extremely and uniquely harmful").”
People v. Schmidt, 938 N.E.2d 559 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “” 720 ILCS 646/5 (West 2008). Defendant argues section 35 fails the rational basis test, “as it neither bears a reasonable relationship to the interest it was intended to protect, nor does it employ a reasonable method of furthering that interest.”
People v. Laws, 2016 IL App (4th) 140995 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “” 720 ILCS 646/5 (West 2012). The statutory language of section 120(a) prohibits individuals previously convicted under the Act from “knowingly purchas[ing], receiv[ing], own[ing], or otherwise possess[ing] any substance or product containing a methamphetamine precursor.”
People v. Bush, 2015 IL App (5th) 130224 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “" 720 ILCS 646/5 (West 2012). Defendant was charged with two separate offenses under the Act.”
People v. Laws, 2016 IL App (4th) 140995 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 720 ILCS 646/5 (West 2012). The statutory language of section 120(a) prohibits individuals previously convicted under the Act from “knowingly purchas[ing], receiv[ing], own[ing], or otherwise possess[ing] any substance or product containing a methamphetamine precursor.”
People v. Williams, 2024 IL App (4th) 230229-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “” 720 ILCS 646/5 (West 2022). - 20 - Recognizing the societal harm attendant to methamphetamine, the legislature allowed for enhanced Class X sentencing for offenders like defendant, who deliver very large amounts of the substance.”
People v. Bush, 2015 IL App (5th) 130224 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “” 720 ILCS 646/5 (West 2012). Defendant was charged with two separate offenses under the Act.”
People v. Lewis, 2016 IL App (4th) 140852 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 720 ILCS 646/5 (West 2012). Defendant also notes a legislative purpose of “mak[ing] it harder for methamphetamine manufacturers to obtain the precursors to make methamphetamine,” which is a purpose very closely related to the purpose set forth in the statutory language of the…”
People v. Lewis, 2016 IL App (4th) 140852 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “” 720 ILCS 646/5 (West 2012). Defendant also notes a legislative purpose of “mak[ing] it harder for methamphetamine manufacturers to obtain the precursors to make methamphetamine,” which is a purpose very closely related to the purpose set forth in the statutory language of the…”
People v. Schmidt (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “" 720 ILCS 646/5 (West 2008). Defendant argues section 35 fails the rational basis test, "as it neither bears a reasonable relationship to the interest it was intended to protect, nor does it employ a reasonable method of furthering that interest.”
People v. Morales, 2025 IL App (4th) 250655-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “§ 11-501(a)(6); 720 ILCS 646/5 et seq. (West 2024). ¶ 23 Again, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s arguments here.”
People v. McCarty (Ill. 2006). “Given that the process is so hazardous, there is no absurdity in strictly punishing an individual who engages in it, even if he or she does so only once and is unable to produce any usable methamphetamine.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.