BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page A



          Date of Hearing:   June 17, 2014
          Counsel:        Gabriel Caswell


                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                                 Tom Ammiano, Chair

                    SB 1283 (Galgiani) - As Amended:  May 27, 2014
                       As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

           
          SUMMARY  :  Creates a new infraction for the use and possession of  
          specified synthetic stimulant compounds, or synthetic  
          cannabinoids.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Creates an infraction for the use or possession of specified  
            synthetic stimulant compounds or synthetic stimulant  
            derivatives, or any synthetic cannabinoid compound or any  
            synthetic cannabinoid derivative.  Specifies the punishment  
            for the infraction is a maximum fine of $250.  
           
           2)Requests the Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University  
            of California, Los Angeles, or would require Judicial Council  
            to contract with another entity if the university does not  
            comply with that request, to design an evidence-based  
            education program and treatment model for participation in by  
            individuals convicted of the specified crimes. 
           
           3)Requires the Judicial Council to approve the program and  
            treatment model upon a finding that courts can successfully  
            implement the program and education model.
           
           4)Authorizes a defendant, in his or her discretion, to elect to  
            participate in the evidence-based education program and  
            treatment model, if convicted of the   above-described crimes,  
            in which case the execution of sentence would be stayed. The  
            bill would specify that upon successful completion of the  
            program, the case against the defendant would be dismissed.  
           

           EXISTING LAW  :  
           









                                                                 SB 1283
                                                                  Page B



           1)Lists controlled substances in five "schedules" - intended to  
            list drugs in decreasing order of harm and increasing medical  
            utility or safety - and provides penalties for possession of  
            and commerce in controlled substances.  (Health & Saf. Code §§  
            11350-11401.)  

           2)Lists cathinone as a Schedule II controlled substance  
            stimulant and provides that simple possession of cathinone is  
            a misdemeanor, punishable by a jail term of up to six month, a  
            fine of up to $1,000, or both.  (Health & Saf. Code §§ 11055,  
            subd. (d)(8) and 11377, subd. (b)(3).)  

           3)Provides that possession for sale of khat or cathinone is a  
            felony punishable by 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state  
            prison.  (Health & Saf. Code § 11378.)  

           4)Provides that transportation, sale, or furnishing of khat or  
            cathinone is a felony punishable by 2, 3, or 4 years in state  
            prison and a fine of up to $10,000.  (Health & Saf. Code §  
            11379.)  

           5)Provides that any person who possesses for sale, sells or  
            furnishes any synthetic cannabinoid compound shall be punished  
            by imprisonment in the county jail for up to six months, a  
            fine of up to $1,000, or both.  (Health & Saf. Code § 11357,  
            subd. (a.)  

           6)Provides that any person who sells, dispenses, distributes, or  
            gives the stimulant substances naphthylpyrovalerone or  
            cathinone, or specified variations of these drugs, or who  
            offers to do such acts, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable  
            by a jail term of up to six months, a fine of up to $1,000, or  
            both.  (Health & Saf. Code § 11375.5.)  

           7)Provides that "no person shall use, or be under the influence  
            of, a specified controlled substance.  Violation of this  
            provision is a misdemeanor.  (Health & Saf. Code § 11550.)   
            Penalties and special provisions for being under the influence  
            of a controlled substance are the following:  (Health & Saf.  
            Code § 11550, subds. (a)-(c).)   

              a)   First time conviction:  Jail term of from 90 days to one  









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page C



               year.  Probation may last up to five years.  The court must  
               include a 90-day jail term as a condition of probation;  

              b)   Third conviction within seven years of the prior  
               convictions:  If the defendant refuses to complete a  
               licensed drug treatment program, the court must impose a  
               term of at least 180 days in jail unless there are no  
               reasonably available licensed programs;  

              c)   The court may allow a defendant convicted for a second  
               time to complete a licensed drug treatment program in lieu  
               of all or part of the mandatory jail term; and,  

              d)   Counties are encouraged to augment applications for  
               federal and state drug treatment money to treat persons  
               convicted of this offense.    

           8)Holds that within the context of Health and Safety Code  
            Section 11550, "use" of a controlled substance means current  
            use, or use immediately prior to arrest.  (Bosco v. Justice  
            Court (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 179, 191; People v. Velasquez  
            (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 695.)  

          9)Requires non-violent drug possession offenders to be offered  
            drug treatment on probation, which shall not include  
            incarceration as a condition of probation, in the form of,  
            Proposition 36 (Nov. 2000 election), the Substance Abuse and  
            Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA). (Pen. Code §§ 1210.1.)  

           10)Provides that non-violent drug possession offenses include:   
            (Pen. Code § 1210.)  

             a)   Unlawful use, possession for personal use, or  
               transportation for personal use of a controlled substance;  

              b)   Being under the influence of a controlled substance;  
               and,  

              c)   SACPA eligibility is not affected by the classification  
               of the underlying drug possession offense as a felony or  
               misdemeanor.  The controlling factor is that the drug is a  
               controlled substance.   









                                                                 SB 1283
                                                                  Page D




          FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Author's Statement  :  According to the author, "The current law  
            relating to synthetic drugs is inconsistent with the rest of  
            the law relating to controlled substances.  Although  
            possession for sale is currently illegal, simple use and  
            possession is perfectly legal.  This incentivizes the use of  
            these drugs despite their inherent danger.  Kids believe that  
            it's not dangerous if it isn't illegal.  Also, the  
            manufacturers of these drugs market their product to kids as  
            'legal drugs' because if the kids get caught, they will not  
            face any punishment."  

           2)Failure of the "War on Drugs"  :  In June 2011, the Global  
            Commission on Drug Policy (Commission) released a report, "War  
            on Drugs", examining global drug policy over the past  
            half-century.  The purpose of the Commission is to "bring to  
            the international level an informed, science-based discussion  
            about humane and effective ways to reduce the harm caused by  
            drugs to people and societies" and is comprised of current and  
            former heads of state, public officials, and experts.  (Global  
            Commission on Drug Policy.  For a full list of Commission  
            members, please visit  
            <  http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Commission  >.)

          The report states, "The global war on drugs has failed, with  
            devastating consequences for individuals and societies around  
            the world.  Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single  
            Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President  
            Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental  
            reforms in national and global drug control policies are  
            urgently needed.

          "Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures  
            directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal  
            drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or  
            consumption.  Apparent victories in eliminating one source or  
            trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the  
            emergence of other sources and traffickers.  Repressive  









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page E



            efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to  
            reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful  
            consequences of drug use.  Government expenditures on futile  
            supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more  
            cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and  
            harm reduction."  [Global Commission on Drug Policy, War on  
            Drugs (June 2011).]

          Among the recommendations found in the report, the Commission  
            recommended implementing drug policies and strategies that are  
            fiscally responsible and are grounded in science, health,  
            security and human rights, rather than those driven by  
            ideology and political convenience.  (Id. at pg. 3.)   
            Specifically, the Commission recommends reassessing the manner  
            in which drugs are scheduled, mentioning cannabis as one drug  
            that is anomalously scheduled high in proportion to its risk,  
            as determined by an independent expert assessment of risk.   
            (Id. at 11-12.)  The Commission does not specifically mention  
            synthetic cannabinoid compounds, but because of the chemical  
            similarity to cannabis (marijuana), it is likely the  
            commission would view regulation of such compounds in a  
            similar manner.

          In preparation of the final report, the Commission requested a  
            number of background papers.  One of these background papers  
            examined the effects of current drug policy on the criminal  
            justice system and incarceration.  This paper stated, "The  
            last three decades have witnessed a global increase in the  
            criminalization of improper drug use.  Criminalization has  
            resulted in increased use of harsh punitive sanctions imposed  
            on drug offenders and dramatic increases in rates of  
            incarceration.  These policies have had limited impact on  
            eliminating or reducing illegal drug use and may have resulted  
            in adverse consequences for social and community health.  The  
            criminal justice system has proved to be an ineffective forum  
            for managing or controlling many aspects of the drug trade or  
            the problem of illegal drug usage."
           
          "Drug Policy and the incarceration of low-level drug offenders  
            is the primary cause of mass incarceration in the United  
            States.  40% of drug arrests are for simple possession of  
            marijuana.  There is also evidence that drug enforcement has  









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page F



            diverted resources from law enforcement of violent crimes and  
            other threats to public safety.  Incarceration of low-level  
            drug offenders has criminogenic effects that increase the  
            likelihood of recidivism and additional criminal behavior . .  
            . .  Growing evidence indicates that drug treatment and  
            counseling programs are far more effective in reducing drug  
            addiction and abuse than is incarceration."  [Bryan Stevenson,  
            Global Commission on Drug Policy, Drug Policy, Criminal  
            Justice, and Mass Imprisonment (January 2011) pg. 2.]
                
            3)Synthetic Cannabinoids  :  The European Monitoring Centre for  
            Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is a European Union agency.   
            The EMCDDA website states that it "exists to provide the EU ?  
            with a factual overview of European drug problems and a solid  
            evidence base to support the drugs debate." 



            The EMCDDA website includes the following information about  
          synthetic cannabinoids:



               Synthetic cannabinoids ?. bind to the same cannabinoid  
               receptors in the brain [as THC]   ?  More correctly  
               designated as cannabinoid receptor agonists, they were  
               developed over the past 40 years as therapeutic  
               agents, often for ? pain. However, it proved difficult  
               to separate the desired properties from unwanted  
               psychoactive effects.  Although often referred to  
               simply as synthetic cannabinoids, many of the  
               substances are not structurally related to the  
               so-called 'classical' cannabinoids, i.e., compounds,  
               like THC?




               The synthetic cannabinoids fall into seven major  
               structural groups ?. Identification and quantitative  
               analysis is limited by the availability of pure  
               reference samples.  No field tests ? will detect the  









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page G



               majority of synthetic cannabinoids.  [F]orensic  
               analysis of blood samples for the recent intake  
               detection of synthetic cannabinoids [is] available in  
               some laboratories.  [D]etection of metabolites in  
               urine samples is not yet fully developed.



               [L]ittle is known about the detailed pharmacology and  
               toxicology of the synthetic cannabinoids and few  
               formal human studies have been published.  It is  
               possible that, apart from high potency, some  
               cannabinoids could have? long half-lives potentially  
               leading to a prolonged psychoactive effect.  ? [T]here  
               could be considerable ? batch variability? in terms of  
               substances present and ?quantity. Thus, there is a  
               higher potential for overdose than with cannabis.   
               (Italics added.)
                
            4)Regulation of Synthetic Cannabinoids  :  Cannabinoids are  
            essentially drugs that bind to certain receptors in the brain  
            - the same receptors to which THC and other drugs obtained  
            from cannabis bind.  Synthetic cannabinoids are often  
            inaccurately described as "synthetic marijuana" or "synthetic  
            THC" - the most prominent psychoactive chemical in marijuana.   
            However, as the preceding comment illustrates, synthetic  
            cannabinoids are often not closely related chemically or  
            similar to THC.
             
             If any synthetic cannabinoid can be shown to be chemically  
            equivalent to THC, or the effects of the drug equivalent to  
            THC, conduct involving the synthetic cannabinoid would be  
            subject to prosecution because the drug would be considered an  
            analog of THC.  An analog is a drug that is substantially  
            similar in chemical structure or effects to a scheduled drug.   
            Under California law, an analog of a controlled substance is  
            essentially treated as a controlled substance.  Because many  
            synthetic cannabinoids may not be similar in properties or  
            chemical structure to THC, the ability of prosecutors to use  
            the analog statute in synthetic cannabinoid cases may be  
            limited.  This is particularly likely if the defendant retains  
            an expert who can explain the chemistry and effects of  









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page H



            cannabinoids.  



            The diverse structures and effects on a user of synthetic  
            cannabinoids also make it difficult to draft a statute  
            including the drugs in the controlled substance schedules as  
            generic groups or classes of drugs, unlike opiates for  
            example.  It could be necessary to name each class or form of  
            similar synthetic cannabinoids, and perhaps numerous  
            individual chemicals.  There are dozens, if not hundreds, of  
            synthetic cannabinoids and more could be developed.


            A legislative effort to ban synthetic cannabinoids could be  
            difficult to achieve.  The National Conference of State  
            Legislatures (NCSL) has posted a list of the eight groups of  
            synthetic cannabinoids that are variously prohibited in  
            numerous state codes.  Consistent with the NCSL list, it  
            appears that as of 2013 the federal controlled substances  
            schedules include 26 individual synthetic cannabinoids or  
            synthetic stimulants and eight types of synthetic  
            cannabinoids. This was done through congressional action and  
            emergency scheduling by the federal Drug Enforcement  
            Administration (DEA).  Nevertheless, in February of 2013, the  
            American Association for Clinical Chemistry Website posted  
            diagrams of the chemical composition of synthetic cannabinoids  
            in products tested in September 2012.  Of the 16 detected  
            compounds or chemicals, only five were included in the federal  
            drug schedules.


            A March 3, 2014 posting on the Website-electronic journal  
            EmDocs - Emergency Medicine Education - noted that new forms  
            of synthetic cannabinoids were being developed to avoid  
            detection in drug tests and greater intoxication.  Each new  
            form has its own "distinctive binding affinity" to cannabinoid  
            receptors.  "First generation synthetic cannabinoids are  
            believed to be more benign than the newer generation  
            cannabinoids, which are more likely to cause cardiotoxicity  
            and neurotoxicity."  It appears that efforts to stay ahead of  
            synthetic cannabinoid prohibitions will result in more  









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page I



            problematic substances.  

           5)Synthetic Stimulant Naphthylpyrovalerone  :  The United Kingdom  
            Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is an agency of  
            the UK Home Office that advises policy makers on drug issues.   
            In the past few years, the ACMD has reported on the synthetic  
            stimulants covered by this bill. 

            The ACMD has stated that naphthylpyrovalerone (or naphyrone)  
            "acts as a triple monoamine reuptake inhibitor, producing  
            psychostimulant effects."  The report<1> noted that naphyrone  
            has been described as being stronger than cocaine or  
            amphetamines.  However, a prominent product branded as NRG-1  
            may not necessarily contain naphyrone or naphthylpyrovalerone,  
            but may contain "naphyrone or any number of other  
            cathinones?caffeine or other?constituents."

            Triple reuptake inhibitors affect the neurotranmitters  
            dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine.  Cocaine is a triple  
            reuptake inhibitor.  (Methamphetamine affects dopamine  
            neurotransmitters and MDMA (ecstasy) affects the serotonin  
            system.)  Naphyrone also appears to cause direct release of  
            neurotransmitters.  In sum, naphyrone appears to be a highly  
            potent stimulant, perhaps many times stronger than cocaine. 

           6)Analog Prosecution Issues  :  The ACMD report also stated:   
            "Naphyrone has a close structural resemblance to the  
            cathinones such as mephedorne and methylenedioxy-pyrovalerone  
            MDVP.  Naphyrone, however, remains outside the generic  
            definition in which a number of cathinones ? were controlled  
            [in 2010]."  In particular, the ACMD report stated:   
            "Naphyrone is a naphthyl analogue of the cathinones ?" The  
            European drug monitoring agency reports that synthetic  
            cathinones are controlled as a class of drug in the UK.

            California controlled substance law includes five schedules.   
            The schedules list specified chemicals and often include the  
            salts and other variants of the scheduled drug.  It would  
            appear that many of the listed controlled substances could be  
            said to include generic definitions.


            --------------------------
          <1> UK Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD)  Consideration  
          of naphthylpyrovalerone analogues and related compounds  .








                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page J




            California controlled substance law also allows prosecution of  
            a person for possession of and commerce in a drug that is an  
            "analog" of a Schedule I or II drug.  (Health & Saf. Code §§  
            11400-11401.)  The purpose of the analog law is to prevent  
            "street chemists" from circumventing drug laws by synthesizing  
            drugs "which have, are represented to have, or are intended to  
            have effects on the central nervous system which are  
            substantially similar to, or greater than" scheduled drugs.   
            (Health & Saf. Code § 11400.)

            An analog is defined as:

               (1) A substance the chemical structure of which is  
               substantially similar to the chemical structure of a  
               [Schedule I or II controlled substance]. 

               (2) A substance which has, is represented as having,  
               or is intended to have a stimulant, depressant, or  
               hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system  
               that is substantially similar to, or greater than, the  
               stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the  
               central nervous system of a [Schedule I or II  
               controlled substance].   (Health & Saf. Code § 11401.)

            Appellate court decisions have held that the analog statute  
            has a broad application.  Clearly, an analog need not fit  
            within the definition of a scheduled drug.  In People v.  
            Becker (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1151, the appellate court  
            upheld the defendant's conviction for possession of MDMA as an  
            analog of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance.  
             The court found that there was substantial evidence that MDMA  
            produced effects that were "substantially similar" to  
            methamphetamine.  The major testimony to support the  
            prosecution's case was that of the police investigator who  
            stated:  "It's initially much like cocaine.  Its methyldioxy  
            methamphetamine that is what MDMA is.  So from the  
            methamphetamine, logically it's a stimulant, so you would get  
            a dramatically raised heartbeat?"  The investigator noted that  
            MDMA also has hallucinogenic effects.  (Id., at p. 1154-1155.)

            The Becker case supports a conclusion that the California  









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page K



            analog law is quite broad.  Cathinone is a Schedule II  
            stimulant.  (Health & Saf. Code § 11055, subd. (d)(8).)  If  
            the UK ACMD report is correct that naphthylpyrovalerone "has a  
            close structural resemblance to cathinones" and that the drug  
            is a psychostimulant, naphthylprovalerone may be found to be  
            an analog of cathinone under California law.  Further, as  
            naphthylpyrovalerone interacts with the same neurotransmitters  
            as cocaine, and produces similar effects, it could possibly be  
            said to be an analog of cocaine.

            Committee staff is unaware of any case where a district  
            attorney was unable to prosecute possessors of so-called "bath  
            salts" under the analog statute.  Nor is staff aware of any  
            particular cases where such a prosecution was upheld.   
                                                                                         However, discussions with representatives of district  
            attorneys indicate that the Los Angeles District Attorney may  
            believe that his or her office can prosecute bath salt  
            (naphthylpyrovalerone) cases pursuant to the analog law.

            The DEA has reported significant success in applying the  
            federal analogue statute to "many" synthetic drugs of all  
            kinds.  However, it is not clear if most synthetic  
            cannabinoids in current use are included.  



            Nevertheless, the National Institutes of Health's PubMed site  
            included an abstract of an emergency medicine journal article  
            that stated as to all of the new classes of synthetic drugs:   
            "Slight alterations of the basic chemical structure of  
            substances create an entirely new drug no longer regulated by  
            current laws and an ever-changing landscape of clinical  
            effects."  It also appears that new forms of synthetic drugs  
            are being constantly developed.  

            The author has expressed a willingness to further define the  
            scientific compounds and analogs of the substances referenced  
            in this bill.  These amendments would strengthen the  
            legislation and improve the policy.   
             
           7)Argument in Support  :  According to the  California Narcotic  
            Officers' Association  , "The California Narcotic Officers  









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page L



            Association commends you for your introduction of Senate Bill  
            1283.  This legislation would prohibit the possession of  
            so-called 'bath salts' and 'synthetic marijuana.'
             
             " 'Ivory Wave,' 'Purple Wave,' 'Vanilla Sky,' and 'Bliss' are  
            among the many street names of so-called designer drugs known  
            as 'bath salts,' which have sparked thousands of calls to  
            poison centers across the U.S.  These drugs contain synthetic  
            chemicals that are similar to amphetamines.  Some, but not  
            all, of the chemicals used to make them are illegal.

            "With names like Spice, K2, No More Mr. Nice Guy, and hundreds  
            of others, the drugs often called 'synthetic marijuana' are -  
            in reality - very different from marijuana.  They contain  
            powerful chemicals called cannabimimetics and can cause  
            dangerous health effects.  The drugs are made specifically to  
            be abused.  Like many other illegal drugs, synthetic marijuana  
            is not tested for safety, and users don't really know exactly  
            what chemicals they are putting into their bodies.

            "Although sale and possession for sale are prohibited in  
            California, possession of bath salts or spice is permitted.

            "Put simply, these are products that not only harm the user,  
            they are pharmacological assault weapons.  There have been  
            numerous instances of persons under the influence of bath  
            salts or spice engaging in aggressive actions against others.   
            The most visible manifestation of those actions involved an  
            incident in Miami where a person under the influence of bath  
            salts literally ate the face off of a homeless man.

            "Senate Bill 1283 will prohibit the possession of bath salts  
            or spice, making possession a misdemeanor.  The reality is  
            that persons arrested for possession will not be incarcerated.  
             Instead, pursuant to Proposition 36, they will be sent to a  
            treatment program, where they will have a chance to free  
            themselves from an extremely destructive addiction."

           8)Argument in Opposition:   According to the  Drug Policy  
            Alliance  , "As currently written, SB 1283 would create new  
            penalties for the possession of synthetic cannabinoids and  
            stimulants for personal use. 









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page M




            "We do not believe that it is the author's intent to deny  
            young people and others the opportunity to go to college, join  
            the armed forces, or find employment. However, that is the  
            likely outcome of SB 1283.  The lifetime consequences of a  
            misdemeanor drug possession offense include:  loss of  
            educational benefits to pay for college; denial of federally  
            subsidized housing benefits; denial of nutritional and job  
            training benefits (in other states); reduced opportunity for  
            employment in the public and private sector; discharge from  
            military service; and, loss of veterans benefits, among  
            others.  These life-long collateral consequences are simply  
            not warranted, and do nothing to advance our state's public  
            safety, public health and economic goals. 

            "Further, the Drug Policy Alliance opposes this bill because  
            our current drug laws are applied in a racially and  
            economically biased manner and there is no reason to believe  
            that these new penalties will be applied equitably. 

            "Drug Policy Alliance did not oppose penalties for sale or  
            possession for sale of synthetic cannabinoids and stimulants,  
            in order to get these new and potentially harmful products out  
            of convenience store or other settings where adults or minors  
            might purchase them.  However, we cannot ever condone locking  
            someone up for what they put into their own body, or possess  
            solely for their own personal use.  The drug war/mass  
            incarceration approach has wasted billions of public dollars,  
            and erected lifetime barriers to successful employment and  
            education.  These employment, housing, nutrition and education  
            barriers fall hardest on low income communities of color." 

           9)Prior Legislation  :  

             a)   AB 2420 (Hueso) 2011-2012 legislative session, would  
               have created infraction and misdemeanor penalties for  
               possession or use of specified synthetic stimulants and  
               synthetic cannabinoids.  AB 2420 failed passage in Assembly  
               Public Safety.  

             b)   AB 486 (Hueso), Chapter 656, Statutes of 2011,  
               prohibited the sale, dispensing, distribution, furnishment,  









                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page N



               administration or giving, or attempt to do so, of any  
               synthetic stimulant compound of any specified synthetic  
               stimulant derivative.  Violation of this section is  
               punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 6  
               months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that  
               fine and imprisonment.  

             c)   SB 420 (Hernandez) Chapter 420, Statutes of 2011,  
               prohibited the sale, dispensing, distribution, furnishment,  
               administration or giving, or attempt to do so, of any  
               synthetic cannabinoid compound or any synthetic cannabinoid  
               derivative.  Violation of this section is punishable by  
               imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 6 months, or by  
               a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that fine and  
               imprisonment.  
           

          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          California Narcotic Officers' Association 

           Opposition 
           
          A New PATH
          American Civil Liberties Union
          American Friends Service Committee 
          California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
          California CURE
          California Public Defenders Association  
          Drug Policy Alliance 
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)  
          319-3744 















                                                                  SB 1283
                                                                  Page O