In People v. Morse (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 620 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 343 (Morse).the question was whether reckless or malicious possession of an explosive device (Pen. Code, 12303.2) is an inherently dangerous felony. In answering this question yes, Morse stated: "Appellant argues that because there are 'conceivable ways of violating the statute that do not necessarily pose a threat to human life' the crime is not inherently dangerous. . . . We must view the elements of the offense, not the particular facts of the instant offense. In viewing the elements our task is not to determine if it is possible (i.e., 'conceivable') to violate the statute without great danger. By such a test no statute would be inherently dangerous. Rather the question is: does a violation of the statute involve a high probability of death? (People v. Patterson, supra, 49 Cal. 3d 615, 617.) If it does, the offense is inherently dangerous." (Morse, supra, 2 Cal. App. 4th at p. 646; see also James, supra, 62 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 269-270 James concluded that the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine is an inherently dangerous offense for purposes of the second degree felony-murder doctrine; in reaching this conclusion, James quoted this passage from Morse to dispense with an argument that "a skilled person can manufacture methamphetamine 'relatively' safely".)