BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1036| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1036 Author: Hernandez (D) Introduced:2/12/16 Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/5/16 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8 SUBJECT: Controlled substances: synthetic cannabinoids: analogs SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill provides that a synthetic cannabinoid that is an analog of another synthetic cannabinoid on the list of prohibited synthetic cannabinoids shall be treated as though it were specifically included in the list. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Classifies drugs into five schedules in federal statutes. (21 U.S.C. § 812.) 2)Follows, in California, the federal schedules, but does not set out the criteria for the schedules that are included in federal law. (Health & Saf, Code § 11054 et seq.) SB 1036 Page 2 3)Provides that an analog of a controlled substance that is defined or listed as a Schedule I or II drug shall be "treated the same" as the specifically scheduled drug. An analog is defined as follows: a) A substance the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance classified in Section 11054 or 11055. b) 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 controlled substance classified in Section 11054 or 11055. (Health & Saf. Code § 11401, subds. (a)-(b).) 4)Provides the following exceptions to the analog statute: a) Any substance for which there is an approved new drug application as defined under Section 505 of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 355) or which is generally recognized as safe and effective for use pursuant to Sections 501, 502, and 503 of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Secs. 351, 352, and 353) and 21 C.F.R. Section 330 et seq. b) With respect to a particular person, any substance for which an exemption is in effect for investigational use for that person under Section 505 of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 355), to the extent that the conduct with respect to that substance is pursuant to the exemption. (Health & Saf. Code § 11401, subd (c).) 5)Prohibits possession of or commerce in specified drugs by individual statutes, not by reference to or inclusion in the controlled substance schedules. Such drugs include synthetic cannabinoids and nitrous oxide. (Health & Saf. Code § 11357.5; Pen. Code § 381b and 381c.) 6)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, SB 1036 Page 3 subd. (a).) 7)Provides that, 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 a synthetic cannabinoid will be deemed to be included in the list of prohibited synthetic cannabinoids and subject to the same penalty as those synthetic cannabinoids enumerated in current law, if the drug or chemical is an analog of any synthetic cannabinoid that is specifically included in that list. Background Synthetic cannabinoids come in two basic forms. CB1 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. THC binds to CB1 and CB2 receptors. CB1 cannabinoids have psychoactive properties. Typically statutes, news reports and academic works concern CB1 synthetic cannabinoids. Synthetic cannabinoid compounds were developed in basic medical research for controlled studies of the functions of cannabinoid receptors in the brain and body. These receptors bind with endogenous cannabinoids (produced naturally in the body) and with the active chemicals in cannabis. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3567606/.) California law treats a substance that is the chemical or functional equivalent of a drug listed in Schedule I or II of the controlled substance schedules the same as a scheduled drug. Such a drug is defined as a controlled substance analog. Schedule I drugs are deemed to have no medical utility and a high potential for abuse. Schedule II drugs have legitimate medical uses, but also a high potential for abuse. Newly developed synthetic cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids that are not on the existing list of prohibited synthetic cannabinoids, are not covered by the California analog statute. That is because they are not included in Schedule I or II of the controlled substances schedules, or any of the five schedules. Illegal synthetic cannabinoids are separately defined and prohibited. SB 1036 Page 4 As synthetic cannabinoids are chemically and functionally unusual and variable, it is difficult to predict how this bill would be implemented in practice. The main commonality among the extremely varied synthetic cannabinoids is that they bind to the same receptors in the brain and elsewhere in the body. It appears that it has been difficult to develop known samples against which seized drugs or chemicals can be compared to determine if a chemical is a synthetic cannabinoid, if it is a synthetic cannabinoid on a list of prohibited chemicals, or to determine if the chemical is an analog of specifically prohibited synthetic cannabinoid. Discussions with experts at RTI International, a scientific research firm that contracts with the Drug Enforcement Administration, various government entities and private firms, indicated that determining in litigation that any particular chemical is an analog of a prohibited synthetic cannabinoid might not be an easy task. This would be particularly true if a defendant presented an expert to raise questions about whether a questioned drug is substantially similar in chemical structure to a prohibited synthetic cannabinoid. Further, the effects of synthetic cannabinoids are quite varied. The European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addition (EMCDDA) reports that most synthetic cannabinoids are manufactured in China and shipped though legitimate distribution networks. The EMCDDA reported on adverse consequences of synthetic cannabinoid use: 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. ?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, SB 1036 Page 5 seizures, hypertension, emesis (vomiting) and hypokalemia (low potassium levels). ?There is some evidence?that synthetic cannabinoids can be associated with psychiatric symptoms? There are also investigations underway in the US regarding links between the use of synthetic cannabinoids? and [kidney and brain injuries]. (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/topics/pods/synthetic-canna binoids.) Synthetic cannabinoids account for a very small proportion of emergency room cases for drug and alcohol overdose or harm. However, 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 cannabinoid can only guess as to its composition and effects. 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. (http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2014. pdf) FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: Yes SUPPORT: (Verified 4/18/16) Association of Deputy District Attorneys Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs California Association of Code Enforcement Officers California College and University Police Chiefs Association California Narcotic Officers Association SB 1036 Page 6 California Police Chiefs Association California State Sheriffs' Association Consortium Management Group Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association Los Angeles Police Protective League Peace Officers Research Association of California Riverside Sheriffs Association OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/18/16) American Civil Liberties Union California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Public Defenders Association Drug Policy Alliance ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Consortium Management Group (CMG) argues in support of this bill: Synthetic cannabinoids in the last decade have found a substantial market, especially among young people who are looking for an arguably legal alternative to marijuana. Sold under familiar brand names such as Spice, Scooby Snax and Ks, they seek to mimic the effects of THC in natural cannabinoids. However, they are toxic and unpredictable, and thus more dangerous than cannabis. The deadly impact is getting worse. Deaths have tripled in the first half of 2015 compared to the first half of 2014. During the same period, [synthetic cannabinoid-related] calls to poison centers grew by 229%. These harms are further highlighted by the comparable safety of natural cannabinoids. Tragic consequences of use of these drugs have led to new federal and state laws that ban synthetic cannabinoids. However, manufacturers have tried to stay a step ahead of the law by changing the chemicals so that the new compound is legal. In some cases, these changes have made synthetic cannabinoids more unpredictable and dangerous. SB 1036 endeavors to stay ahead of the manufacturers by adding synthetic cannabinoids to current law that makes analogs of specified controlled SB 1036 Page 7 substances subject to the same prohibitions as the controlled substances themselves. CMG works with Caliva, a major medical marijuana dispensary in San Jose. CMG strongly supports new laws enacted to create structure for and ensure oversight of the growing medical cannabis industry. A goal of this new statutory scheme is to ensure protection for medical marijuana patients. Allowing the perpetuation of an unpredictable, life-threatening synthetic compound that is inappropriately characterized as an alternative to cannabis is antithetical to that goal. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) argues in opposition: DPA opposes punishing people for simple possession of a controlled substance. There is no evidence that criminalizing drug possession reduces drug use or harm. Forty-five years of the war on drugs demonstrates that prohibition and punishment have not reduced drug use, but have exacerbated associated harms. California criminalized possession of specified synthetic cannabinoids in legislation that became effective on January 1st of this year. Laws criminalizing synthetic compounds have not contributed to decreasing the already low rates of use anywhere in the United States. And there is no urgent need to widen the net of punishment in California. On the contrary, criminalization can exacerbate health risks by pushing risky behavior underground where people who need help the most are the least likely to get it. This is particularly true for synthetic cannabinoid compounds which can be easily acquired through online retailers, many based in foreign countries - a threat that will not be removed by California prohibitions. Moreover, expanding drug prohibition to include new synthetic drugs will result in significantly more wasteful drug war spending without deceasing rates of distribution or use. SB 1036 Page 8 Rather than enact more prohibitions, the state and federal governments should fund research to better understand the potential harms of synthetic cannabis and educate the public. Comprehensive education and prevention are working to greatly reduce tobacco use, a drug that has contributed to more deaths than alcohol and illicit drugs combined. Lawmakers across the country are calling for a public health, rather than criminal justice, approach to dealing with illicit drugs. SB 1036 (Hernandez) takes the wrong approach by perpetuating the criminalization of a health issue. Prepared by:Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. / 4/20/16 15:58:13 **** END ****