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 ****