BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1036
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1036
(Hernandez) - As Introduced February 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy | Public Safety |Vote:| 5 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
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.
FISCAL EFFECT:
SB 1036
Page 2
Unknown increased local nonreimbursable costs for incarceration,
which will be offset to a degree by fine revenue.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. 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 the
scheduled drug. Such a substance is defined as a controlled
substance analog. California law allows prosecution of a
person for possession of, or commerce in, a substance that is
an analog of a Schedule I or II drug. The purpose of the
analog law is to prevent street chemists from circumventing
drug laws by synthesizing drugs which have slight chemical or
functional differences from the prohibited drug.
California's drug analog law provides two ways to establish
that a substance is an analog of a drug. The first method
relies on demonstrating that the substance has a chemical
structure which is "substantially similar" to the chemical
structure of the drug. The second method requires a showing
that the substance 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 the effect of the drug
Newly developed synthetic cannabinoids are not covered by the
California analog statute as synthetic cannabinoids are not
included in Schedule I or II of the controlled substances
schedules. Illegal synthetic cannabinoids are separately
defined and prohibited.
California's analog law has been criticized as being too vague
to provide sufficient legal guidance. The criticism has
SB 1036
Page 3
focused on the "substantial similarity" in the chemical
structure or in the effect, or intended effect on the central
nervous system. California courts have found "substantial
similarity" meets constitutional requirements.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "While outlawing certain
families of substances can be helpful, the ingenuity of the
criminal mind ensures that new, potentially more dangerous
drugs, will take their place. Putting a comprehensive ban in
place will assist in forestalling these efforts."
SB 1036 includes synthetic cannabinoids within California's
analog law.
3)Support: According to Consortium Management Group, "A rash of
tragic consequences resulting from the use of synthetic
cannabinoids led to new law federally and in many states like
California that ban synthetic cannabinoids. However,
manufacturers have tried to stay a step ahead of the law by
making changes at the chemical level so that the new compound
is legal. Unfortunately, in some cases, the chemical changes
have made the synthetic cannabinoid even more unpredictable
and dangerous.
"SB 1036 endeavors to stay ahead of the manufacturers by adding
synthetic cannabinoids to current law that makes analogs of a
controlled substance subject to the same prohibitions as the
controlled substance."
4)Opposition: According to The American Civil Liberties Union
of California, "By incentivizing manufacturers to constantly
develop new substances in response to bans, laws that
criminalize synthetic cannabinoids force users to continuously
switch to new substances whose safety profile is not known
scientifically or anecdotally. Rather than criminalizing
SB 1036
Page 4
users, the legislature should aim to enhance public safety by
expanding the scientific knowledge available on existing
substances and educating the public about their potential
harms."
5)Related Legislation: SB 139 (Galgiani), awaiting a hearing in
Assembly Public Safety, expands the definition of a synthetic
stimulant compound and a synthetic cannabinoid compound for
purposes of existing law.
6)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 1283 (Galgiani), Chapter 372, Statutes of 2013, makes
the use or possession of specified synthetic stimulant
compounds or synthetic stimulant derivatives, punishable by
a fine of up to $250.
b) 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 the
Assembly Public Safety Committee.
c) AB 486 (Hueso), Chapter 656, Statutes of 2011,
prohibited the sale, dispensing, distribution, furnishment,
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 by up to six
months, and/or a fine of up to $1,000.
d) SB 420 (Hernandez), Chapter 420, Statutes of 2011,
prohibited the sale, dispensing, distribution,
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 by up to six months, and/or a
fine of up to $1,000.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 1036
Page 5