BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    SB 139        Hearing Date:        May 12, 2015 
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Galgiani                                             |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |January 26, 2015                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |Yes                    |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|JM                                                   |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                           Subject:  Controlled Substances



          HISTORY

          Source:   California Narcotics Officers Association

          Prior Legislation:SB 1283 (Galgiani) - Ch. 372, Stats. 2013
                         AB 486 (Hueso) - Ch. 656, Stats. 2011
                         SB 420 (Hernandez) - Ch. 420, Stats. 2011
                         AB 2420 (Hueso) - Died in Assembly Public Safety,  
          2012
                         AB 1141 (Anderson) - Ch. 292, Stats 2007

          Support:  Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Los  
                    Angeles Police Protective League; Riverside Sheriffs  
                    Association; California Association of Code  
                    Enforcement Officers; California College and  
                    University Police Chiefs Association; California  
                    Police Chiefs Associations; California State Sheriffs'  
                    Association; California District Attorneys Association

          Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union; Legal Services for  
          Prisoners with Children

                                       PURPOSE










          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageB  
          of?
          

          The purpose of this bill is to 1) provide that possession of a  
          specified synthetic cannabinoid or possession of a specified  
          synthetic stimulant is a crime, with the following classes of  
          offense and penalties:  First offense is an infraction,  
          punishable by a fine of up to $250;  a second offense is an  
          infraction or misdemeanor, with a misdemeanor fine of up to  
          $500, a jail term of up to six months, or both; a third or  
          subsequent offense is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up  
          to $1,000, a jail term of up to one year, or both; 2) to add  
          myriad specified drugs or chemicals to the list of prohibited  
          synthetic cannabinoids in existing law; and 3) add specified  
          synthetic stimulants to the statutory list of prohibited drugs  
          of that type.


          Existing law lists controlled substances in five "schedules" -  
          intended to reflect 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.)

          Existing law 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).)

          Existing law 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.)

          Existing law 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.)

          Existing law 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.)

          Existing law provides that any person who sells, dispenses,  









          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageC  
          of?
          
          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.)

          Existing law provides that it is a misdemeanor to "use or be  
          under the influence of" a specified controlled substance.   
          (Health & Saf. Code § 11550.)  Penalties and special provisions  
          for being under the influence of a controlled substance are the  
          following:

                 First time conviction:  Jail term of 90 days to one  
               year.  Probation may last up to five years.  The court must  
               include a 90-day jail term as a condition of probation;
                 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;
                 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,
                 Counties are encouraged to augment applications for  
               federal and state drug treatment money to treat persons  
               convicted of this offense.   (Health & Saf. Code § 11550,  
               subds. (a)-(c.)  

          Existing decisional law 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.)

          Existing Law - Proposition 36 (Nov. 2000 election), the  
          Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA) -  
          requires non-violent drug possession offenders to be offered  
          drug treatment on probation, which shall not include  
          incarceration as a condition of probation.  (Pen. Code §§  
          1210-1210.5.)

          Existing law provides that non-violent drug possession offenses  
          include:










          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageD  
          of?
          
                 Unlawful use, possession for personal use, or  
               transportation for personal use of a controlled substance;
                 Being under the influence of a controlled substance;  
               and, (Health and Saf. Code § 11550.); and, 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.  (Pen. Code § 1210.)

          Existing law provides that beginning on January 1, 2016, a  
          person who "uses or possesses" a specified synthetic cannabinoid  
          or specified synthetic stimulant is guilty of an infraction.   
          (Health and Saf. Code § 11357.5.)

          This bill provides that possession or use of a specified  
          synthetic cannabinoid or synthetic stimulant is guilty of a  
          crime, as follows:

                 The first offense is an infraction, punishable by a fine  
               of up to $250.
                 The second offense is an infraction or misdemeanor.  The  
               infraction penalty is a fine of up to $250 and the  
               misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail  
               not to exceed six months, a fine of up to $500, or both.
                 A third or subsequent offense is a misdemeanor,  
               punishable by a jail term not to exceed six months, a fine  
               of up to $1,000, or both. 

          This bill adds a voluminous or exhaustive list of specified  
          classes of synthetic cannabinoids and individual chemicals to  
          the definition of a synthetic cannabinoid that appears in  
          current criminal statutes. 

          This bill adds a number of synthetic stimulants - essentially  
          synthetic cathinones<1> - to the list of these prohibited  
          substances in existing law. 

          This bill is an urgency measure.

                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION


                             ---------------------------
          <1>  
          http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/synthetic- 
          cathinones








          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageE  
          of?
          
          For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized  
          legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential  
          impact on prison overcrowding.  Mindful of the United States  
          Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the  
          state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care  
          to its inmate population and the related issue of prison  
          overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a  
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that  
          the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison  
          overcrowding.   

          On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to  
          reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of  
          design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:   

                 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
                 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
                 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 

          In February of this year the administration reported that as "of  
          February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34  
          adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed  
          capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state  
          facilities.  This current population is now below the  
          court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(  
          Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February  
          10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman  
          v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

          While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison  
          population, the state now must stabilize these advances and  
          demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place  
          the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently  
          demanded" by the court.  (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and  
          Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December  
          31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,  
          Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14).  The Committee's  
          consideration of bills that may impact the prison population  
          therefore will be informed by the following questions:

        Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to  
            reducing the prison population;
        Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or  
            criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable,  









          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageF  
          of?
          
            appropriate remedy;
        Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous  
            to the physical safety of others for which there is no other  
            reasonably appropriate sanction; 
        Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or  
            legislative drafting error; and
        Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate,  
            and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably  
            appropriate remedy.



          COMMENTS

          1.Need for This Bill

          According to the author:

               The danger and prevalence of synthetic drugs has been  
               well-documented in news media stories throughout the  
               state and country.  From the 16-year old in  
               Indianapolis who passed away after his first time  
               trying the drug  
               (http://fox59.com/2015/02/03/new-synthetic-drug-bill-pr 
               oposed-as-statewide-ban-is-thrown-out/), to the 18  
               year old in North Dakota who died on a street corner  
               after trying the drug  
               (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/us/synthetic-drugs-inves 
               tigation/), to right here in our own backyards where a  
               19 year old died after simply taking one hit of the  
               drug  
               (http://www.news10.net/story/news/local/roseville/2014/ 
               08/08/roseville-teen-dies-after-smoking-spice-connor-ec 
               khardt/13782433/), we are undoubtedly watching the  
               spread of a deadly and extremely dangerous new  
               substance. 

               On February 4th of this year NBC 4 of Southern  
               California ran a story detailing how synthetic drugs  
               are now the second most used illicit drug by high  
               school seniors; second only to marijuana  
               (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Designer-Drugs 
               -Rise-Teens-Spice-Lean-Bath-Salts-291000251.html).   
               The market for these drugs is fundamentally rooted in  









          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageG  
          of?
          
               demand from our youth here in California. Just last  
               year in my district, a drug bust netting over $20  
               million worth of synthetic drugs took place at  
               warehouses in Stockton and Millbrae  
               (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/05/07/stockton-war 
               ehouse-raided-as-part-of-nationwide-crackdown-on-spice- 
               drug/).  In Bakersfield, a drug bust uncovered over  
               1,000 pounds of these drugs and over $2.7 million in  
               cash  
               (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/bath-salts-mi 
               chael-kamar_n_4459846.html).  Two Orange County men  
               were also recently arrested for allegedly selling more  
               than $12 million worth of substances used to create  
               synthetic drugs  
               (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/oc-men-charged-bath 
               -salts-drug-ring--20140613-story.html).  Finally,  
               multiple synthetic drug busts in Texas have been  
               accredited to being manufactured here in California,  
               indicating the sophistication of these local  
               operations.  
               (http://www.news-journal.com/news/police/raid-hits-long 
               view-stores-that-sell-synthetic-drug-owners-arrested/ar 
               ticle_6ede7edf-9000-55c3-b8d6-cd5f4d41d342.html).  
               (http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1156 
               375#.VNj1OsnlwfA). 

               Part of the reason that these drugs dealers are having  
               so much success marketing the drug to teenagers and  
               young adults is that they are able to market them as  
               being legal.  Up until my bill last year, simple  
               possession of these drugs was actually perfectly legal  
               under state law.  This is despite their  
               well-documented danger.  Now it has come to my  
               attention that, underground chemists skirt the law by  
               slightly altering the chemical compounds of these  
               drugs, to come up with new versions, which  
               technically, are NOT illegal yet.  Senate Bill 139  
               will close these loopholes in state law and allow law  
               enforcement to be better equipped in getting these  
               drugs away from our communities.

          2.Background - Synthetic Cannabinoids  
          
          Synthetic cannabinoids come in two basic forms.  CB1  









          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageH  
          of?
          
          cannabinoids bind to CB1 cannabinoid receptors in the brain.   
          CB2 cannabinoid receptors bind to cells throughout the body that  
          are largely involved in regulating the immune system, although  
          their full properties of CB2 are not known.  It appears that CB2  
          cannabinoids could be used to treat inflammation.  (THC binds to  
          CB1 and CB2 receptors.)  C1 cannabinoids have psychoactive  
          properties.<2> Typically statutes, news reports and academic  
          works concern CB1 synthetic cannabinoids. 

          The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction  
          (EMCDDA) is a European Union agency that "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.  ?However, it proved difficult to separate the  
               desired properties from unwanted psychoactive effects.  
                Although often referred to simply as synthetic  
               cannabinoids [or synthetic marijuana], many of the  
               substances are not structurally related to the  
               so-called "classical" cannabinoids like THC?

               ?[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?leading to a  
               prolonged psychoactive effect.  ? [T]here could [also]  
               be considerable ? batch variability? in terms of  
               substances present and ?quantity.   



          Recent EMCDD Data on Synthetic Cannabinoids Include:

           A synthetic cannabinoid, JWH-018, was first detected in  
            "Spice" products in 2008.



          ---------------------------
          <2> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3567606/








          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageI  
          of?
          
           81 new psychoactive substances were reported to EMCDDA in  
            2013, 29 were synthetic cannabinoids.
           105 synthetic cannabinoids in total [were] monitored by EU  
            Early Warning System [in January of 2014].
           14 recognizable chemical families of synthetic cannabinoids  
            are known.

          The EMCDD reports that most synthetic cannabinoids are  
          manufactured in China and shipped though legitimate distribution  
          networks.<3>  The White House Office of National Drug Control  
          Policy<4> states that most synthetic cannabinoids originate  
          overseas, but that they are also being made on a small scale in  
          the United States.

          The EMCDD reported<5> on adverse consequences of synthetic  
          cannabinoid use:
          ---------------------------
          <3>  
          http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/topics/pods/synthetic-cannabinoids
          <4>  
          https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/synthetic-drug 
          s-k2-spice-bath-salts
          <5> The adverse health effects associated with synthetic  
          cannabinoids are linked to both the intrinsic nature of the  
          substances and to the way the products are produced. There have  
          been numerous reports of non-fatal intoxications and a small  
          number of deaths associated with their use. As noted above, some  
          of these compounds are very potent, therefore the potential for  
          toxic effects is high. In this respect some of the harms may  
          result from uneven distribution of the substances within the  
          herbal material, which may result in some products containing  
          doses that are higher than intended .
          The reported adverse effects of synthetic cannabinoid products  
          include agitation, seizures, hypertension, emesis (vomiting) and  
          hypokalemia (low potassium levels). Although some of these are  
          similar to symptoms observed after a high dose of cannabis,  
          researchers have concluded that 'legal highs' containing  
          synthetic cannabinoids are potentially more harmful than  
          cannabis. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that  
          synthetic cannabinoids can be associated with psychiatric  
          symptoms, including psychosis. There are also investigations  
          underway in the US regarding links between the use of synthetic  
          cannabinoid products and acute kidney injury and recently, a  
          case report associated the use of the cannabinoid JWH-018 with  
          acute ischemic strokes in two otherwise healthy males.








          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageJ  
          of?
          

               The adverse health effects associated with synthetic  
               cannabinoids are linked to both the intrinsic nature  
               of the substances and to the way the products are  
               produced.  There have been numerous reports of  
               non-fatal intoxications and a small number of deaths  
               associated with their use.  As noted above, some of  
               these compounds are very potent; therefore the  
               potential for toxic effects is high.  Harm may result  
               from uneven distribution of the substances within the  
               herbal material, result[ing] in products containing  
               doses that are higher than intended.

               The reported adverse effects of synthetic cannabinoid  
               products include agitation, seizures, hypertension,  
               emesis (vomiting) and hypokalemia (low potassium  
               levels).  ?There is some evidence?that synthetic  
               cannabinoids can be associated with psychiatric  
               symptoms, including psychosis.  There are also  
               investigations underway in the US regarding links  
               between the use of synthetic cannabinoids? and acute  
               kidney injury and recently, a case report associated  
               the use of the cannabinoid JWH-018 with?strokes in two  
               otherwise healthy males.

           


          1.This Bill is Drawn From a Model Statute and Lists 14 Classes  
            or Families of Synthetic Cannabinoids and Myriad Individual  
            Chemicals
          
          As noted above, there are 14 currently known "families" or  
          classes of chemicals.  The bill appears to include them all.   
          The EMCDD noted that 105 individual chemicals in these classes  
          were being monitored in Europe in 2014.  This bill appears to  
          include hundreds of individual chemicals in the list of  
          prohibited synthetic cannabinoids.  Many of the chemicals are  
          identified through a letter and number combination, such as  
          JWH-018, AM-087 and HU-210. The letters are generally the  
          initials of the researcher who first synthesized the chemical or  
          the institution where the research was done.

          The background provided by the author and sponsor includes model  









          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageK  
          of?
          
          statutes for prohibiting synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic  
          stimulants.  The model statute was drafted by the National  
          Alliance for Model State Drug Laws.<6>  The list of chemicals in  
          the bill appears to be copied from the model statute.  The  
          purpose of describing synthetic cannabinoids by class or family  
          is to include any new chemical in each class as a prohibited  
          substance.  That is, if a new drug is developed in any of the 14  
          classes, the chemical is prohibited, regardless of whether the  
          individual chemical is included in the statute.  It is not known  
          whether many new synthetic cannabinoid classes can or will be  
          developed.  Synthesis of a new class or family of cannabinoids  
          would not be included in the list of prohibited chemicals.
         
          2.Emergency Room Visits Related to Synthetic Cannabinoids
          
          From 2010 through 2011 reported emergency room (ER) visits  
          linked to synthetic cannabinoids increased from 11,406 to  
          28,531.  The vast majority of patients were young males, ages 12  
          through 20.<7> This is a relatively small number of ER visits,  
          as total drug-related ER visits numbered 2,460,000 in 2011.  Of  
          the 2,300,000 ER visits in 2010, approximately 460,000 concerned  
          marijuana and approximately 11,000 concerned synthetic  
          cannabinoids.  However, the reported number of synthetic  
          cannabinoid ER visits likely understates actual visits, as  
          testing availability is limited and some medical personnel might  
          not be familiar with the drugs.   The ER studies reported that  
          very few patients engaged in follow-up treatment.  It is not  
          clear whether ER doctors did not make referrals for additional  
          care, or if patients chose not to seek it. 

          Very recently, ER visits for synthetic cannabinoids have spiked.  
           As use of these drugs appears to be dropping, the surge in ER  
          visits is likely the result of a dangerous change in chemical  
          composition of the drugs.  One who obtains a synthetic  


          ---------------------------
          <6>  http://www.namsdl.org/about.cfm  . According to its website,  
          NAMSDL is funded by Congress and coordinates policy initiatives  
          with the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
          <7>  
          http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/SR-1378/SR-1378.pd 
          f












          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageL  
          of?
          
          cannabinoid can only guess as to its composition and effects.<8>

          The New York Times explained in an April 24, 2015 article:   
          "[Synthetic cannabinoids ?typically imported from China by  
          American distributors, come in hundreds of varieties; new  
          formulations appear monthly, with molecules subtly tweaked to  
          try to skirt the DEA's list of illegal drugs as well as  
          drug-detecting urine tests.  ? [E]each new variety can present  
          distinct health risks caused by its underlying chemistry or  
          contaminants in renegade manufacturing facilities."

           5.United Nations Report on Synthetic Cannabinoids Addresses the  
            Issue of Dependence or Addiction
          
          A United Nations report in 2011 considered the addictive  
          potential of synthetic cannabinoids.  The report found:

               Some reports suggest that a number of these substances  
               may have a higher addictive potential compared to  
               cannabis due to quicker development of tolerance [26,  
               53].  11 In a case report published by Zimmermann et  
               al. in 2009 [53], withdrawal phenomena and a  
               dependence syndrome occurred after repeated  
               consumption of relatively high doses of 'Spice gold',  
               i.e. 3 g per day.  From experiments carried out with  
               autaptic hippocampal neurons, it was shown that JWH018  
               could potently induce rapid and robust CB1 receptor  
               internalization, highlighting the potential of  
               developing tolerance and dependence on this substance  
               [26].  

          It appears that users who consume the same synthetic cannabinoid  
          substance could become dependent or habituated relatively  
          quickly.  However, the chemical composition of synthetic  
          cannabinoids changes rapidly, often with a different affinity  
          for cannabinoid receptors and a different effect on the user.   
          It is not clear if there is a general dependence or addictive  
          quality among synthetic cannabinoids, such that use of one  
          chemical or substance would contribute to dependence on another,  
          or other, synthetic cannabinoids.  Multiple synthetic  
          cannabinoids that bind to the same cannabinoid receptors would  

          ---------------------------
          <8>  
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/health/surge-in-hospital-visits 
          -linked-to-a-drug-called-spice-alarms-health-officials.html








          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageM  
          of?
          
          perhaps be likely to produce dependence when consumed  
          separately.  One controlled study found evidence that synthetic  
          cannabinoids in the JWH class produced dependence symptoms in  
          mice. The study cautioned that the results might not apply to  
          all chemicals of that class and that some cannabinoid binding  
          chemicals did not appear to produce symptoms of dependence.<9> 

           6.Synthetic Cannabinoid and Synthetic Stimulant Use is Falling  
            Rapidly Among Young People
          
          The University of Michigan Monitoring the Future survey first  
          asked 8th and 10th graders about their use of synthetic  
          [cannabinoids] in 2011.  The survey found that in 2012 annual  
          prevalence rates were 4.4% and 8.8%, respectively. Use in all  
          grades dropped in 2013, and the decline was sharp and  
          significant among 12th graders   The declines continued into  
          2014 and were significant for both 10th and 12th graders; use  
          for all grades declined 40% in 2014 from peak use in 2011   
          Awareness of the dangers of synthetic cannabinoid was up sharply  
          among 12 graders.<10>  

          The use of synthetic stimulants among 8, 10th and 12 graders was  
          first reported in the survey in 2012, with approximately 1% of  
          students having tried the drug.  Use of synthetic stimulants has  
          also declined significantly - down approximately 20% from 2012  
          to 2014.<11>

          The decline in the use of synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic  
          stimulants was preceded by a precipitous drop in the use of the  
          psychedelic salvia divinorum - another drug that gained  
          popularity and some infamy around 2008.  Since peak use (of  
          3.6%) by students in 2011 and 2012, use of salvia declined 61%.   
          Sale or distribution of salvia was made a misdemeanor in 2008,  

          ---------------------------
          <9> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131522/
          <10>  
          http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2014.p 
          df
          <11>  
          http://www.monitoringthefuture.org//pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2 
          014.pdf












          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageN  
          of?
          
          but no penalties exist for possession or use.<12>  The decline  
          in use appears to result from negative experiences by users,  
          such as a frightening sensation of falling through space, not  
          criminal penalties.<13>

          7.  Background on Synthetic Stimulants Covered by This Bill 
          
          It appears that the synthetic stimulant chemicals included in  
          this bill are closely related to cathinone, the psychoactive  
          chemical in the khat plant, which is commonly used in the Middle  
          East.  Khat and Cathinone are included in Schedule II  
          stimulants.  (Health and Saf. Code § 11055, subd. (d)(7)-(8).)   
          Without this bill, it appears that possession of one of the  
          specified synthetic chemicals would be a crime through the  
          analog statute.  The analog statute provides that any drug that  
          has a chemical structure or properties that are similar to a  
          scheduled drug can be the subject of prosecution as though the  
          drug were included in the schedules.  

          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.<14> 

               Synthetic cathinones are related to the parent  
               compound cathinone, one of the psychoactive principals  
               in khat?  Cathinone derivatives are ?. analogues of a  
               corresponding phenethylamine.  The group includes  
               several substances that have been used as active  
               pharmaceutical ingredients ? Since the mid-2000s,  
               unregulated ring-substituted cathinone derivatives  
               have appeared in the European recreational drugs  
               market.  The most commonly available cathinones sold  
               on the recreational market in the period up to 2010  
               appear to be mephedrone (Figure 3) and methylone.   
               [The drugs]? are claimed to have effects similar to  
               those of cocaine, amphetamine or MDMA, but little is  
               ----------------------
          <12>  
          http://www.monitoringthefuture.org//pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2 
          014.pdf
          <13>  
          http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/FactSheet_Salvia.pd 
          f
          <14>  
          http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/synthetic- 
          cathinones








          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageO  
          of?
          
               known of their detailed pharmacology.  Apart from  
               cathinone [and other specified chemicals]. cathinone  
               derivatives are not under international control.

               ?Like cocaine, the resulting 'high' of mephedrone is  
               short-lived.  Consequently, users may consume several  
               doses in succession.  ?[Specified chemical  
               alterations] could [create] more potent [drugs].  It  
               should be noted that?PMA and PMMA are known to have a  
               particularly high toxicity, and this property might  
               translate to their analogues. 

          As noted above, cathinone is the main psychoactive chemical in  
          the khat plan.  Use of khat in the United States has grown in  
          recent decades.  The New York State Office of Alcohol and  
          Substance Abuse Services produces research and educational  
          material about drugs.  The office has published the following  
          discussion of khat:<15>


               Khat has been grown for use as a stimulant for  
               centuries in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian  
               Peninsula.  There, chewing khat predates the use of  
               coffee and is used in a similar social context.  Its  
               fresh leaves and tops are chewed or?consumed as tea,  
               [producing] euphoria and stimulation.  The stimulant  
               effect is most effective when the leaves are still  
               fresh.



               Khat use has traditionally been confined to the  
               regions where khat is grown, because only the fresh  
               leaves have the desired? effects.  In recent years  
               improved [transportation] has increased the global  
               distribution.  



               ?In 1975, the [chemical] cathinone was isolated [from  
               khat].  Cathinone is not very stable and breaks down  
               to produce cathine and norephedrine.  These chemicals  
               belong to the PPA (phenylpropanolamine) family, a  



               ----------------------
          <15> http://www.oasas.ny.gov/AdMed/FYI/khat.cfm








          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageP  
          of?
          
               subset of the phenethylamines related to amphetamines  
               and the catecholamines, epinephrine and  
               norepinephrine.   
          
          8.  Previous Similar Bill - SB 1283 (Galgiani) Ch. 372, Statutes  
          of 2014
           
          In 2014, the committee heard another bill - SB 1283 - concerning  
          synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic cathinone drugs.  SB 1283  
          becomes effective in 2016.  SB 1283 was amended in this  
          committee to reflect the same basic penalty structure as in this  
          bill.  That is, a first offense is an infraction, punishable by  
          a fine of up to $250.  A second offense is an infraction or a  
          misdemeanor.  A third or subsequent offense is a misdemeanor.   
          However, the bill included novel provisions concerning the  
          education and treatment of defendants found to be in possession  
          of a listed synthetic drug.  The amendments (stripped from the  
          bill in the Assembly) provided that a defendant could elect to  
          participate in an education program.   If the defendant  
          successfully completed the education program, the fine that he  
          or she paid would be returned.  The bill included community  
          services provisions and made defendants eligible for the  
          Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) - Proposition  
          36 of 2000.

          SB 1283 requested the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs to  
          design the education program or designate another entity to do  
          so.  The Luskin School houses a respected concentration in Crime  
          and Drug Control Policy.  The bill further directed the Judicial  
          Council to approve and help implement the education program.  In  
          Senate Appropriations, the bill was narrowed and implementation  
          delayed until 2016.  In the Assembly, the misdemeanor provisions  
          and the education program were stricken from the bill.   
          Possession of a specified synthetic cannabinoid or specific  
          synthetic stimulant was simply defined as infractions.  The bill  
          was chaptered in this form, including delayed implementation  
          until 2016.  Thus, the provisions of SB 1283 have not gone into  
          effect.

          9.  Proposition 36 of 2000, the Substance Abuse and Crime  
          Prevention Act
          
          SACPA requires any person convicted of non-violent possession of  
          any substance included in the controlled substance schedules to  









          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageQ  
          of?
          
          be offered treatment on probation, with no jail sanctions. 
          Defendants convicted of possession of a specified synthetic  
          cannabinoid or a specified synthetic stimulant will not be  
          eligible for SACPA if this bill or SB 1283 becomes effective.   
          The specified chemicals or drugs are not included in the  
          controlled substance schedules, but are separately listed or  
          described in the sections defining crimes for commerce in or  
          possession of these chemicals.  

          


          10.  Drug Treatment in the Court System
          
          Recent research has considered the effectiveness of varying  
          forms of court-based drug treatment with other forms or sources  
          of treatment demand.<16>  UCLA studies of the effectiveness of  
          SACPA - Proposition 36 of 2000 were released in 2003 and  
          2006.<17>  SACPA requires drug treatment without incarceration  
          for non-violent drug possession.  UCLA found that the SACPA  
          model was as effective as drug court or voluntary treatment  
          models and produced $2.50 in savings from every dollar spent.   
          Improvements in funding allocations and programs would have  
          produced better results.

          State funding for SACPA ended in 2006.  Individual counties must  
          bear the costs of the program. The California Society of  
          Addiction Medicine has more recently found that SACPA produced  
          positive results, including for participants who did not  
          complete the full program.  

          An extensive 2007 study of 474 drug offenders in drug court in  
          Maricopa County Arizona (the Phoenix area) compared the outcomes  
          in drug court treatment for persons who were subject to jail  
          sanctions against those who were not subject to sanctions.  The  
          study found that the threat of jail sanctions did not affect the  
          participant's rate of retention in or completion of the program.  
           

          ---------------------------
          <16> Much of the basis for this comment is a report or monograph  
          written by Senate Fellow, Bethany Renfree at the request of  
          Senator Jackson.
          <17>  
          http://www.uclaisap.org/prop36/documents/sacpa_costanalysis.pdf








          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageR  
          of?
          
          11.  Drug Treatment Issues Raised by this Bill - Proposals of  
          the Sponsor
          
          Representatives of the sponsor of this bill - the California  
          Narcotics Association - have argued that that treatment for  
          users of the drugs included in this bill is essential.   
          Representatives have suggested or considered implementation of a  
          pre-guilty plea treatment program.  Under such a program, a  
          person arrested for misdemeanor possession of a specified  
          synthetic drug or chemical would be offered treatment for a  
          specified amount of time, with no necessity of a guilty plea.   
          If the person completed the program, the arrest would be deemed  
          to have never occurred.  Those who fail in the treatment program  
          would face prosecution.  

          It has been widely emphasized by experts in drug abuse and  
          treatment that drug dependence or addiction is a chronically  
          relapsing condition, similar to obesity or diabetes in this  
          respect.<18>  It is to be expected that a person in treatment  
          for drug dependence will relapse and use the drug of dependence  
          or another drug.  Such relapses do not mean that the person is  
          not benefiting from treatment.  It appears that treatment is  
          cumulative, such that what appear to be initial failures in  
          treatment contribute to success or substantial progress over  
          time.  If a pre-plea treatment is implemented by this bill, it  
          is suggested that the governing statute or statutes include a  
          legislative finding that drug dependence is a chronically  
          relapsing condition and that positive tests for use of a drug  
          shall not be grounds for dismissal from the program if there are  
          other signs of progress or positive changes from the program.   
          For example, a history of less frequent relapses with success or  
          progress by the treatment participant in employment, training,  
          education or family responsibilities and relations would  
          indicate that treatment is beneficial.

          Procedurally, it appears that defendants arrested for being in  
          possession of a synthetic cannabinoid or a specified synthetic  
          stimulant could be deemed eligible for participation in a  
          pre-plea diversion program, as described in Penal Code Section  
          1000.5.  Such a provision would face two problems: 1) Existing  
          Penal Code Section 1000.5 excludes from participation any person  

          ---------------------------
          <18>  
          http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/media-guide/science-drug-ab 
          use-addiction-basics








          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageS  
          of?
          
          who has a prior drug conviction, any person who did not  
          completed a previous deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) or  
          diversion program, any person who had his or her probation or  
          parole revoked, and person has a prior felony conviction within  
          the previous five years, or any person whose crime involved  
          violence or a threat of violence.  2) Pre-plea diversion is only  
          available in a county where the presiding judge, the district  
          attorney and the public defender all agree to implementation of  
          the program.  Most counties only use a DEJ program, as described  
          in Penal Code Section 1000.   In DEJ, the defendant must plead  
          guilty.  Judgment is then deferred while the defendant  
          participates in a treatment, education and rehabilitation  
          program.  If the defendant successfully completes the program,  
          the conviction and arrested are stricken.  Otherwise, judgment  
          is entered and sentence imposed.

          The exclusions in existing DEJ and diversion statutes would  
          cover a wide range of persons who have participated in a prior  
          drug treatment programs through a court or on supervision.  As  
          noted above, it should be expected that persons in treatment  
          will relapse and use a prohibited drug.  It is perhaps likely  
          that those who successfully complete a DEJ or diversion program  
          under existing law are not truly drug-dependent.

          To address concerns that existing standards for DEJ or diversion  
          would exclude very many people who would benefit from treatment,  
          the bill could provide that a person arrested for possession of  
          a synthetic cannabinoid or synthetic stimulant is not eligible  
          for the program if any of the following circumstances apply: The  
          underlying crime involved violence or the threat of violence.   
          The person's supervision status in a probation, parole,  
          mandatory supervision or post-release community supervision has  
          been revoked for a violation that is not directly related to the  
          use of a prohibited drug or controlled substance.  The person  
          has been convicted of a felony that did not solely involve  
          possession or use of a controlled substance or prohibited drug  
          in the past five years.  The defendant has been convicted of a  
          crime for which sex offender registration is required, or the  
          defendant has a history of violence.  The court finds by clear  
          and convincing evidence that the person is unamenable to any and  













          SB 139  (Galgiani )                                       PageT  
          of?
          
          all forms of drug treatment.<19>

          The bill could provide that pre-plea diversion for persons  
          covered by this bill shall be provided, regardless of whether  
          the county has a current pre-plea diversion program. It appears  
          that the treatment, education and rehabilitation programs for  
          persons placed in either DEJ or diversion programs would be the  
          same.  A person who does fail in the diversion program would  
          face prosecution.  As noted above, he or she would not be  
          eligible for SACPA/Proposition 36, as the drugs covered by this  
          bill are not included in the controlled substance schedules.  

          The bill could provide that if the participant's continued drug  
          use - as shown by multiple positive drug tests - creates a  
          current and ongoing likelihood of material harm to the  
          participant or others, the participant can be dismissed from the  
          program or found not to have successfully completed the program.

          Committee members may wish to consider the proposal of the  
          sponsor to create a pre-plea diversion program for persons who  
          arrested pursuant to this bill. The discussion above could guide  
          drafting of the program.
                                      -- END --


          
















          ---------------------------
          <19> The fact that a defendant is unamenable to any and all  
          forms of drug treatment is an factor of exclusion under 
          SACPA.  (Pen. Code § 1210.1, subd. (b)(5).)