BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, ChairS
2011-2012 Regular Session B
3
1
5
SB 315 (Wright)
As Introduced February 14, 2011
Hearing date: April 26, 2011
Health & Safety Code
JM:dl
PSEUDOEPHEDRINE:
SALE OR DISTRIBUTION BY PRESCRIPTION ONLY
HISTORY
Source: Attorney General's Office
Prior Legislation: AB 162 (Runner) - Ch. 978, Stats. 1999
Support: California Fraternal Order of Police; California
Narcotics Officers Association; California Police
Chiefs Association; Long Beach Police Officers
Association; Los Angeles County Professional Peace
Officers Association; Santa Ana Police Officers
Association; California State Conference of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People; County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators
Association of California; California State Sheriffs'
Association; California District Attorneys Association
Opposition:Rite Aid; Association of California Life and Health
Insurance Companies; California Retailers Association;
National Association of Chain Drug Stores; Consumer
Healthcare Products Association; Reckitt Benckiser
SB 315 (Wright)
PageB
Pharmaceuticals; Health Net; Los Angeles Society of
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology; Peace Officers
Research Association of California; Drug Policy
Alliance; California Grocers Association; Bayer Heath
Care; BIOCOM; Anthem Blue Cross; Johnson & Johnson;
California Healthcare Institute; California Association
of Health Plans; California Chapter of the Asthma and
Allergy Foundation of America
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD PSEUDOEPHEDRINE, EPHEDRINE, NORPSEUDOEPHEDRINE AND
PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE BE SOLD OR DISTRIBUTED BY PRESCRIPTION ONLY?
SHOULD POSSESSION OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE AND THE OTHER SPECIFIED DRUGS
WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION BE AN ALTERNATE MISDEMEANOR-INFRACTION?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow sale or distribution of
ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine or
phenylpropanolamine by prescription only and to provide that a
person who obtains of one of these drugs without a prescription
is guilty of an alternate misdemeanor-infraction.
Existing law provides the following restrictions and
requirements for the sale of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine,
norpseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine in over-the-counter
retail transactions:
A retailer in a single transaction may sell no more than
three packages of a product containing these chemicals.
A retailer may sell no more than nine grams of
ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine or
phenylpropanolamine.
A first violation of these restrictions is a
misdemeanor, punishable by a jail term of up to six months,
a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageC
A second or subsequent violation is a misdemeanor,
punishable by a jail term of up to one year, a fine of up
to $10,000, or both. (Health & Saf. Code � 11100, subd.
(g).)
Existing federal law (21 USC � 830, subd. (e).) - the Combat
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act includes detailed restrictions and
requirements for retail sale of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine,
norpseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine. These restrictions
include, in part:
No more than 3.6 grams in a single transaction.
No more than 7.5 grams per customer in a one-month
period.
Seller must maintain a written or electronic logbook of
each sale, including the date of the transaction, the name
and address of the purchaser and the quantity sold.
Purchaser must present valid identification.
The purchaser must sign a paper or electronic logbook,
as specified.
Existing law defines a dangerous drug as one that is unsafe for
self-use, including any drug that under federal or state law
must be obtained by a prescription. (Health & Saf. Code �
4021.)
This bill provides that ephedrine, pseudoephedrine,
norpseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine may be sold or
distributed by prescription only and eliminates statutory
provisions controlling over-the-counter sale of such products.
This bill creates an exemption from prescription requirements
for "pediatric liquids" containing such drugs.
This bill provides that any person who "obtains"
pseudoephedrine, or specified, related products is guilty of an
infraction-misdemeanor.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageD
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the federal court scrutiny of
California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30,
2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as
early as this spring.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageE
There are few examples of legislation that both
increase public safety and save the state general fund
money. SB 315, legislation to make products
containing pseudoephedrine available by prescription
only, does just that. The economic cost of
methamphetamine use in the United States was a
staggering $23.4 billion in 2005, including the burden
of addiction, premature death, drug treatment and many
other aspects of the drug, according to a 2008 RAND
Corporation study. With the most recent increase in
the numbers of methamphetamine lab, and the huge
increase in the amount of pseudoephedrine being
imported into the United States, these costs will only
increase. SB 315 is about facts, and the industry
that opposes prescription only cannot, and will not,
provide facts in opposition.
The following are facts:
- The number of methamphetamine labs is
increasing yearly, especially in states like
Kentucky that have implemented a computer
tracking/stop sale system.
- States with a prescription-only system
have seen dramatic decreases in meth labs.
Oregon has gone from averaging more than
four-hundred labs per year to averaging less than
12. In the first 8 months of implementation,
Mississippi has seen more than a seventy percent
drop in meth lab numbers.
- In the past two years, Kentucky (the
industry "Gold Standard") has broken its own
record for the number of meth labs discovered.
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageF
- Since implementation of the federal
Combat Meth Act (purchase limit of 9 grams per
month, the industry has almost doubled its
importation of pseudoephedrine.
- The number of California citizens seeking
treatment for addition for meth now outpaces
those seeking treatment for alcohol addiction.
- California is fifth in the nation for the
number of meth labs discovered. However,
California produces more methamphetamine than the
top four states combined.
- California by far contains the most Super
Labs (a lab capable of making more than 10 pounds
of meth) in the Nation.
- The industry makes hundreds of millions
of dollars off of pseudoephedrine that ends up in
American meth labs each year.
The industry response to these facts is to list a
number of terrible consequences to making products
containing pseudoephedrine available by prescription
only:
- Users of pseudoephedrine will overwhelm
emergency rooms with request for the drug: This
never happened in Oregon and has yet to happen in
Mississippi.
- The cost for products containing
pseudoephedrine will skyrocket: The Department
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageG
of Justice, Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement
contacted pharmacies across Oregon to poll the
costs of products containing pseudoephedrine.
The costs of the products were equal to, and
sometimes cheaper than, the same products sold in
California.
- Consumers would lack access to cold and
allergy medications: The Department of Justice,
working with Oregon law enforcement, reached out
to homeless advocates in the state of Oregon.
There was no outcry over the prescription only
legislation and consumers purchased the
off-the-shelf versions of the product.
- Costs to Medical will skyrocket:
Oregon's version of Medical saw a total increase
of about seven-thousand dollars for the entire
state.
SB 315 is common sense legislation that will severely
reduce the meth lab problem in California.
2. Access to Decongestant Medications Under This Bill for Persons
With Little or No Access to Physicians; Efficacy Comparisons
Between Pseudoephedrine and Alternatives
Many consumers rely on pseudoephredine products to ease nasal
congestion due to colds, allergies and related maladies. A
prescription is not required in California, and these
medications are readily available to people without medical
insurance or non-emergency access to physicians. By requiring a
prescription for pseudoephedrine, this bill would limit or deny
access to this medication for Californians who do not have ready
access to a health care provider.
In recent years, because of restrictions on pseudoephedrine the
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageH
pharmaceutical industry has developed and marketed alternatives.
The most common substitute is phenylephrine. A recent article
by Gayle Nicholas Scott, Pharm. D.,<1> reviewed the relative
efficacies of pseudoephedrine and phenylephrine. Dr. Scott
concluded: "Phenylephrine appears to have less decongestant
activity than pseudoephedrine ." She also noted that
phenylephrine has a shorter half-life than pseudoephredine, thus
requiring more frequent use. Should this bill pass this
Committee, the Senate Health Committee, to which it has been
double referred, may explore these access and efficacy issues in
greater depth.
WOULD THIS BILL ALLOW THOSE WITH LIMITED ACCESS TO PHYSICIANS,
OR LIMITED FUNDS FOR TREATMENT, TO OBTAIN AN EFFECTIVE
MEDICATION WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION?
HOW EFFECTIVE ARE OVER-THE-COUNTER ALTERNATIVES TO
PSEUDO-EPHEDRINE FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO PHYSICIANS
TO OBTAIN A PRESCRIPTION FOR PSEUDOEPHEDRINE?
3. Restrictions on Pseudoephedrine in Other States
According to the 2010 Drug Threat Assessment by the U.S.
Department of Justice, 45 states have enacted pseudoephedrine
restrictions. (2010 Threat Assessment, USDOJ., pp. 66-67.)
Twenty states have made pseudoephedrine a controlled substance,
typically with an exception for over the counter sales
consistent with federal law. Forty-three states have imposed
point-of-sale restrictions, and 26 have pseudoephedrine tracking
laws. (Ibid.)
Oregon has required a prescription for any pseudoephedrine
purchase since 2006. Mississippi has required a prescription
---------------------------
<1> Dr. Scott wrote the article as a consultant to Sportpharm, a
company that supplies medical supplies and drugs to athletic
organizations. Sportpharm is relied upon by organizations such
as USA Track and Field, the national governing body for track
and field, including anti-doping issues.
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageI
since July, 2010. It appears that the following states have
some sort of electronic tracking of pseudoephedrine sales:
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Washington.
Kentucky is the state most often mentioned as concerns
electronic tracking. The Kentucky State Police have recently
reported a sharp increase in methamphetamine labs from 2008
through 1010 of 429 to 1078. Industry representatives have
argued in hearings and meetings that the electronic tracking law
has helped law enforcement find labs that would have otherwise
gone undetected.
4. New "Shake and Bake" Method for Making Small Batches of
Methamphetamine
A new small-scale process - the "shake and bake" or "one pot"
method - is increasingly popular. One mixes crushed
pseudoephedrine tablets, a substance such as ammonia nitrate,
lithium battery strips, drain cleaner (or similar product) and
water in a container such as a 2-liter bottle. Recipes call for
about 200 tablets of pseudoephedrine, an amount within the
monthly legal limit.
One-pot cooking may create less danger to the public than
traditional cooking methods. An August 2009, AP story stated
that the method produces enough for only a "few hits." While
there is substantial danger that a bottle used to make a small
batch of methamphetamine could explode, the danger appears to
mainly be to the cooker and persons in the immediate vicinity,
although one-pot cooking can cause particularly intense fires,
including a fire in an apartment.<2>
Traditional cooking methods create serious risks of explosion.
---------------------------
<2> See
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32542373/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
.
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageJ
There are reports of entire apartments exploding. (WKRG.com,
July 7, 2009.) In addition, traditional methods produce
relatively large amounts of waste chemicals that are often
dumped into the environment. Children are particularly subject
to contamination by methamphetamine manufacturing.
WILL THE "SHAKE AND BAKE" OR "ONE POT" METHAMPHETAMINE METHOD,
WHICH USES RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNTS OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE, MAKE IT
MORE DIFFICULT TO PREVENT DIVERSION OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE?
5. National Rise in Laboratory Discoveries Derive from the
One-Pot Method; Most Superlabs (10 lb. Capacity) are
Found in California
The 2010 Methamphetamine Threat Assessment published by the U.S.
DOJ National Drug Intelligence Center noted that an increasing
proportion of "laboratory" seizures or incidents result from
one-pot or shake and bake manufacturing:
Domestic methamphetamine laboratory seizures increased
from 3,096 laboratories in 2007 to 3,950 in 2008 to
5,308 in 2009. Analysis of laboratory seizure data
indicate that the increase -71 percent since 2007 -
primarily is due to an increase in the prevalence of
small-scale "one pot," or "shake and bake" ...
method. In fact, of the small-scale laboratories
seized between 2007 and 2009, the number of
small-scale lithium ammonia method laboratories
increased 158 percent overall- from 1,583 in 2007 to
2,584 in 2008 to 4,089 in 2009.
Domestic superlab seizures did not change
significantly during this period. The number of
superlabs �capable of producing 10 lbs. or more of the
drug in a cycle] seized increased only slightly from
2007 (11) to 2008 (17) before decreasing in 2009 (14).
? 13 �superlabs] were seized in California and one in
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageK
Georgia. Rising methamphetamine production in 2009
was realized in six of the nine ? regions, with the
most notable increase occurring in the Great Lakes
Region. ? Of the 1,640 ... laboratories seized in the
region in 2009, most ? were capable of producing only
2 ounces or less... (Italics on superlabs in
California added.)
DO MANY OF THE METHAMPHETAMINE LABORATORIES FOUND IN RECENT
YEARS REFLECT USE OF THE SMALL-SCALE SHAKE AND BAKE METHOD?
IF SO, WHAT DOES THE RISE IN THE SMALL-SCALE MANUFACTURE OF
METHAMPHETAMINE MEAN IN TERMS OF THE VALUE OF THIS BILL IN
COMBATTING METH LABS?
6. US DOJ Reports Increased "Smurfing" - Obtaining
Pseudoephedrine for Methamphetamine through Numerous Purchases
of Legal Amounts - in California
"Smurfing" involves purchases of small amounts of
pseudoephedrine from numerous drug stores. Law enforcement
representatives argue that even where smurfers violate federal
law in purchasing more than 9 grams in a month, the lack of
adequate resources to review electronic and paper purchase logs
allows smurfing to continue. Law enforcement opponents of
state-wide electronic tracking systems for pseudoephedrine
sales, such as is employed in Kentucky, argue that such systems
can be defeated by relatively common use of false identification
and fraud.
As noted in Comment 5 above, the National Drug Intelligence
Center (NDIC) has reported that superlabs have used smurfed
pseudoephedrine. The 2009 report stated: "Mexican criminal
groups and some independent operators �acquire] bulk quantities
of pseudoephedrine through smurfing." The report stated that
some pseudoephedrine smurfed in California was sent to Mexico
for methamphetamine production. The NDIC report appears to
support a conclusion that the percentage of labs or
manufacturing sites that were superlabs increased in 2008 and
2009, although the total number of incidents fell.
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageL
If obtained through legal over-the-counter purchases, the amount
of pseudoephedrine packages required to make 10 pounds of
methamphetamine is nearly mind-boggling. To assemble 10 pounds
of pseudoephedrine would require 1583 of the largest packages -
96 tablets of 30 mgs. each - of pseudoephedrine. Such an
amount would require a large and sophisticated smurfing
operation. Representatives of the Attorney General report that
smurfing schemes have involved around 100 persons.<3>
The difficulty of obtaining large amounts of pseudoephedrine by
smurfing raises the question of whether methamphetamine
superlabs obtain bulk pseudoephedrine through diversion of
legitimate product or fraud. Laboratories have been found with
great piles of pseudoephedrine retail packages. That does not
explain how the meth makers were able to obtain so many
packages.
IS A LARGE AND RELATIVELY SOPHISTICATED OPERATION REQUIRED TO
SMURF THE AMOUNT OF PACKAGES (NEARLY 1600 96-TABLET PACKAGES) TO
OBTAIN 10 POUNDS OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE?
HAVE SUPERLAB OPERATORS OBTAINED PSEUDOEPHEDRINE THROUGH
DIVERSION AND FRAUD?
7. Oregon Law Requires a Prescription for Pseudoephedrine;
Prescription Proponents Attribute the Drop in Oregon Meth
Laboratories to that Law: Related Mississippi Data
-------------------------
<3> The number of purchases needed to obtain 10 pounds of
pseudoephedrine is 1266. One person can purchase 3.6 grams at a
time. There are 4560 grams in 10 pounds. 4560 divided by 3.6
is 1266. Such purchases would likely exceed monthly limits,
but smurfers can exceed the monthly maximum if they buy from
stores that do not have a single tracking system. (Most chain
stores track pseudoephedrine sales electronically. The larger
chains have begun to coordinate their systems.) Nevertheless,
a very large number of separate purchases would be required to
obtain the pseudoephedrine necessary to make 10 pounds of
methamphetamine.
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageM
Proponents of the 2006 Oregon law that requires a prescription
for pseudoephedrine attribute the dramatic reduction of
methamphetamine laboratory incidents in Oregon to the
prescription law. They argued that the law prevents "smurfing"
of pseudoephedrine through multiple over-the-counter purchases
of the drug in an amount allowed by law.
As noted above, Mississippi has required a prescription for
pseudoephedrine since July 2010. A March 16, 2011 Associated
Press story noted: "Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics statistics
show meth lab busts in Mississippi have decreased significantly
since the law went into effect July 1. From July 2009 through
February 2010, 607 meth labs were seized. From July 2010 to
February of this year, the number dropped to 203, a nearly 67
percent decrease."<4>
Meth Lab Incidents<5> in Oregon 2003-2010
-----------------------------------------------------
|2003 |419 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2004 |417 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2005 |189 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2006 (Rx law |55 |
|enacted) | |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2007 |22 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2008 |19 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2009 |12 |
---------------------------
<4> See
http://wcbi.com/article.php?subaction=showfull&id=1300296084&arch
ive=&start_from=&ucat=2,4,5, 45&.
<5> A laboratory "incident" is defined by the DEA as including
labs, dumpsites and chemical or glassware seizures. Thus, the
number of laboratory incidents does not necessarily reflect the
number of labs actually producing methamphetamine.
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageN
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2010 |9 |
-----------------------------------------------------
Oregon Population: 2010: 3,831,074 (US Census Data)
0.23 labs per 100,000
The following table illustrates data for California:
Meth Lab Incidents in California, 2003- 2010
-----------------------------------------------------
|2003 |1,281 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2004 |767 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2005 |468 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2006 |353 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2007 |221 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2008 |346 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2009 |264 |
|--------------------------+--------------------------|
|2010 |170 |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------
California Population 2010: 37,253,956 (US Census Data)
0.45 labs per 100,000
WOULD THE OREGON APPROACH BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING THE METH
LAB PROBLEM THAN THE CURRENT CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
OF OVER-THE-COUNTER SALES?
WOULD THE OREGON APPROACH ADVERSELY AFFECT CONSUMERS WHO CANNOT
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageO
AFFORD A PRESCRIPTION? IF SO, WOULD ITS INTENDED BENEFITS
OUTWEIGH ITS POTENTIAL ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES?
8. Oregon Methamphetamine Situation: Concerns over Continuing
Demand for Methamphetamine; Mexican Drug Trafficking
Organizations; National Issues
Oregon Methamphetamine Issues since Enactment of Pseudoephedrine
Prescription Law
As long as demand for the drug is high, eliminating California
manufacturing of methamphetamine arguably will not diminish use
if the drug remains available from other sources, such as
Mexico. For example, use of methamphetamine is still quite
prevalent in Oregon, despite a substantial decrease in
laboratory discoveries. The Oregon Addictions and Mental Health
Services Department website states: "For a decade, Oregon has
led the nation in methamphetamine-treatment admissions per
100,000 people; treatment admissions for methamphetamine are
second only to those for alcohol." However, in 2007, a year
after Oregon required a prescription for pseudoephedrine, the
Oregon Health Science University reported that emergency room
visits for meth were down from 2006-2007.
While that data is still widely cited, numerous reports have
stated that meth from Mexico had increasingly replaced locally
made meth in Oregon by 2009. That could affect more recent
data.
The 2011 Threat Assessment by the Oregon High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area organization (a combination of federal and
state agencies) found the following:
Laboratory seizures remain very low.
"Methamphetamine use remains at a high level" in Oregon.
Methamphetamine is the greatest drug threat and
contributes most to violent crime and property crime, as
reflected by law-enforcement opinion surveys.
Methamphetamine is increasingly high-potency crystal or
"ice," instead of powder.
Mexican traffickers imported finished product from
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageP
Mexico and other points outside Oregon; Mexican DTOs
increasingly control the methamphetamine business.
Mexican DTOs effectively altered operations to deal with
precursor restriction law.
All drug-related deaths were down in 2009, including
methamphetamine-related deaths. Meth-related death
increased 2007-2008. 2009 deaths were above 2001-2006
levels.
Methamphetamine treatment admissions dropped from 2005
to 2009, after a sharp increase from 2003-2005. Reductions
in treatment availability may have contributed to the
reduction.
Methamphetamine arrests were down 26% from 2007-2009.
This reduction could reflect redirection of law enforcement
resources away from drug labs to drug trafficking, which is
more difficult to investigate and prosecute.
Methamphetamine prison sentences rose 59% from
2006-2009, due in part to increased statutory penalties.
Methamphetamine use reporting by inmates increased from
2005-2009, but decreased 18% from 2006-2009.
Measures of workplace methamphetamine use were mixed.<6>
WHAT IS THE OREGON EXPERIENCE WITH METHAMPHETAMINE TRAFFICKING,
USE AND HARM AFTER ENACTMENT OF A PRESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT FOR
PSEUDOEPHEDRINE?
Concerns in the Midwest over Mexican Drug Trafficking
Organizations and Methamphetamine after Enactment of
Pseudoephedrine Restrictions
Any policy change that results in an increase in importation of
methamphetamine from Mexico, even a law that has the substantial
benefit of reducing illicit laboratories in California, could
still have adverse consequences. Law enforcement and media
sources have noted an increase in violence used by Mexican drug
trafficking organizations (DTOs) in the United States, including
significant increases in violence related to Mexican DTOs in
border states. (Mexican Drug Cartel Violence Spills Over,
---------------------------
<6>
http://www.co.umatilla.or.us/pdf/Sheriff_2011_OR_HIDTA.pdf.
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageQ
Alarming U.S., New York Times, March 22, 2009.)
A January 23, 2006, article in the New York Times entitled,
"Potent Meth Floods in as States Curb Domestic Variety,"
described the intended and unintended consequences of reducing
access to pseudoephedrine in Midwest states. Law enforcement
and health officials found:
Laboratory seizures dropped dramatically (from 120 to 20
a month in Iowa);
Burn injuries from handling toxic chemicals decreased
greatly in Iowa;
Demand remained constant, and even increased among women
in Iowa;
Decreases in removal of children because parents cooked
meth was offset by an increase in removals based on
parental use;
Mexican cartels increased distribution of meth;
Methamphetamine became more potent and addictive;
Overdoses increased; and
In Iowa, methamphetamine prices increased, as did
burglaries.
WILL MEXICAN DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATIONS MEET THE DEMAND FOR
METHAMPHETAMINE, WITH ASSOCIATED HARMS?
9. 2010 U.S. Department of Justice National Methamphetamine
Analysis: Dominance by Mexican DTOs, Reduced Domestic
Production
The 2010 U.S. DOJ Methamphetamine Threat Assessment was
published in the New York Times without release by the National
Drug Intelligence Center. The Times stated that the report was
likely not publicly released because of concerns over offending
the Mexican government. The Times stated that the assessment
"portrays drug cartels as easily able to circumvent the Mexican
government's restrictions on the importing of chemicals used to
manufacture meth, which has reached its highest purity and
lowest price in the United States since 2005." (U.S. Delays
Report tying Meth to Mexico, New York Times, June 8, 2010.)
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageR
The Executive Summary of the assessment presents a pessimistic
portrait of the situation in the United States. Arguably, the
only positive conclusion in the assessment is that "�a]s Mexican
?
production increases, the need for domestic production will
decrease. Preliminary first-quarter 2010 data on
methamphetamine laboratory seizures reflect a downward trend in
domestic production - the result of restored availability of
Mexico-produced product."
The report noted increased smuggling of pseudoephedrine into
Mexico and use of non-pseudoephedrine methods of making
methamphetamine, particularly the P2P (phenyl-2-propanone)
method. P2P methamphetamine is less potent than methamphetamine
made with pseudoephedrine, thus reducing some of the harm caused
by methamphetamine abuse.
The report states:
�M]ethamphetamine availability is high and increasing,
as evidenced by supplies of the purest methamphetamine
available in U.S. markets since 2005, at prices that
currently reflect a 5-year low. As Mexican
methamphetamine production increases ? domestic
production will decrease. Preliminary first-quarter
2010 data on methamphetamine laboratory seizures
reflect a downward trend in domestic production -- the
result of the restored availability of Mexico-produced
methamphetamine?. (DOJ 2010 Meth. Threat Assess.,
p.1, italics added.)
The amount of methamphetamine shipped into the U.S. by Mexican
DTOs in 2009 exceeded the amount shipped in 2005, the year that
pseudoephedrine restrictions began in Mexico. The DOJ
attributed much of the increase in Mexican production to the use
of the P2P method.
However, the United Nations - International Narcotics Control
Board (INCB) - has noted that Mexican DTOs have contracted with
(More)
SB 315 (Wright)
PageS
Asian pseudoephedrine manufacturers. (Precursors, INCB 2008
Report, pp. 7-8.) The INCB reported that Mexican DTOs
established operations in Africa and the Middle East to obtain
precursors, with Mexico as the final destination. (Precursors,
INCB 2008 report, pp. 7-8.) Further, the 2009 DOJ threat
assessment noted that Mexican DTOs have little difficulty
obtaining pseudoephedrine in Central and South America. (2009
National Drug Threat Assessment, DEA, pp. 13-16.)
TO WHAT EXTENT IS DOMESTIC METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION DECREASING
AS A RESULT OF WIDELY AVAILABLE AND INEXPENSIVE METHAMPHETAMINE
PRODUCED IN MEXICO?
IS HARM REDUCED TO USERS IF LESS POTENT P2P METHAMPHETAMINE
REPLACES SOME METHAMPHETAMINE MANUFACTURED IN CALIFORNIA FROM
PSEUDOEPHEDRINE?
10. Drug Demand and Treatment Issues
It has been argued that the only lasting solution for the
problems created by methamphetamine use and manufacturing is to
reduce demand through treatment. While funding for treatment
programs is very limited, it is also costly to incarcerate
methamphetamine offenders. UCLA analyzes the Substance Abuse
and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA - Prop. 36 in 2000). UCLA
researchers concluded that SACPA has save $2.00 for every $1.00
spent on the program. Where a person completed the program,
every $1.00 spent saved $4.00. The UCLA researchers found that
progress has been made in treating methamphetamine abusers. The
2008 report concluded: "Proposition 36 substantially reduced
incarceration costs and resulted in greater cost savings for
some eligible offenders than for others." (UCLA SACPA Report,
2008, p. 11.)
SHOULD THE STATE CONCENTRATE METHAMPHETAMINE CONTROL EFFORTS ON
REDUCING DEMAND FOR THE DRUG?
DOES STEADY DEMAND FOR METHAMPHETAMINE MAKE IT LIKELY THAT NEW
SELLERS WILL MEET THE DEMAND WHEN OTHERS ARE INCARCERATED?
(More)
11. Assembly Bill 1280 (Hill) Would Require Electronic
Tracking of Pseudoephedrine Sales, including a Prohibition on
any Sale over Federal Monthly Purchase Limits
AB 1280 (Hill) - pending in the Assembly Public Safety Committee
- is an alternative or competing measure designed to limit
illicit methamphetamine manufacturing and methamphetamine abuse.
AB 1280 would mandate an electronic tracking system for
purchases of pseudoephedrine. Any retailer of pseudoephedrine
would be required to participate in the system. A purchaser's
information would be entered into the system. Attempted
purchases beyond the federal monthly limit would trigger a
notice to the retailer to not complete the sale. Law
enforcement would have access to the system. The costs of the
system would be borne by private industry, not the state.
12. Pseudoephedrine Prescription and Electronic Tracking Bills
in 2009-2010 Session
A measure that would have required a unified electronic tracking
system for sales of pseudoephedrine - AB 1455 (Hill), was
introduced in the 2009-2010 Session. The bill passed this
Committee, but was held in Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 484 (Wright), which would have required a prescription for
sale of pseudoephedrine, was also introduced in the 2009-2010
session. That bill passed this Committee and the Senate Floor,
but was defeated in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
13. Suggested Amendment - Allow Minors to Possess
Pseudoephedrine Pursuant to a Prescription
It appears that this bill would prohibit any minor from
obtaining or possessing pseudoephedrine, even where a physician
has prescribed the drug. Existing law includes a prohibition on
possession of pseudoephedrine by a minor, and a prohibition on
transfers of pseudoephedrine to a minor, except for valid
over-the-counter sales of the drug. This bill, in eliminating
the exception for valid over the counter purchases by persons
SB 315 (Wright)
PageU
under the age of 18, did not include a new exception for minors
who have a prescription for a pseudoephedrine product.
DOES THE BILL INADVERTENTLY PROHIBIT POSSESSION OF
PSEUDOEPHEDRINE BY A MINOR, EVEN WHERE THE MINOR HAS A
PRESCRIPTION FOR THE DRUG?
SHOULD THE BILL BE AMENDED TO ALLOW A MINOR TO OBTAIN
PSEUDOEPHEDRINE BY PRESCRIPTION?
14. Suggested Amendments - Sunset and Report on Effectiveness
of the Bill
The primary aim of this bill is to reduce the incidence of
methamphetamine labs, largely by eliminating the ability of
illicit methamphetamine makers to obtain the precursor chemical
pseudoephedrine through numerous over-the-counter purchases, or
smurfing. Methamphetamine manufacturing can be directly
dangerous and explosive, and the process creates toxic waste.
The sponsor argues that Oregon and Mississippi have been
successful in this regard by requiring a prescription for
pseudoephedrine.
The sponsor also seeks to limit abuse of methamphetamine.
However, that goal appears to be more elusive than reducing
labs, as Mexican DTOs have been able to distribute
methamphetamine relatively successfully in Oregon and around the
country.
Because methamphetamine manufacturing is toxic and dangerous,
and because methamphetamine abuse is arguably the greatest drug
threat in California, members may wish to evaluate the efficacy
of this bill in reducing illicit methamphetamine manufacturing
and methamphetamine abuse by adding a two-year sunset to the
bill, and requiring a report to the Legislature on the effects
of the bill.
SHOULD THIS BILL INCLUDE A TWO-YEAR SUNSET AND A REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BILL IN REDUCING
METHAMPHETAMINE LABORATORIES AND METHAMPHETAMINE ABUSE?
SB 315 (Wright)
PageV
***************