[House Report 112-295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Rept. 112-295
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 2
======================================================================
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL ACT OF 2011
_______
November 22, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1254]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1254) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to
place synthetic drugs in Schedule I, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 3
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 6
Committee Votes.................................................. 6
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 11
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 11
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 11
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 14
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 14
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 14
Agency Views..................................................... 15
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 20
Dissenting Views................................................. 22
The Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. ADDITION OF SYNTHETIC DRUGS TO SCHEDULE I OF THE CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES ACT.
(a) Cannabimimetic Agents.--Schedule I, as set forth in section
202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Unless specifically exempted or unless listed in another
schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which
contains any quantity of cannabimimetic agents, or which contains their
salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such
salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific
chemical designation.
``(2) In paragraph (1):
``(A) The term `cannabimimetic agents' means any substance
that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist as
demonstrated by binding studies and functional assays within
any of the following structural classes:
``(i) 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol with substitution
at the 5-position of the phenolic ring by alkyl or
alkenyl, whether or not substituted on the cyclohexyl
ring to any extent.
``(ii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 3-(1-
naphthylmethane)indole by substitution at the nitrogen
atom of the indole ring, whether or not further
substituted on the indole ring to any extent, whether
or not substituted on the naphthoyl or naphthyl ring to
any extent.
``(iii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the
nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring, whether or not
further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent,
whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl ring to any
extent.
``(iv) 1-(1-naphthylmethylene)indene by substitution
of the 3-position of the indene ring, whether or not
further substituted in the indene ring to any extent,
whether or not substituted on the naphthyl ring to any
extent.
``(v) 3-phenylacetylindole or 3-benzoylindole by
substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring,
whether or not further substituted in the indole ring
to any extent, whether or not substituted on the phenyl
ring to any extent.
``(B) Such term includes--
``(i) 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497);
``(ii) 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol or CP-
47,497 C8-homolog);
``(iii) 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018 and
AM678);
``(iv) 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073);
``(v) 1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019);
``(vi) 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-
naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200);
``(vii) 1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole
(JWH-250);
``(viii) 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole
(JWH-081);
``(ix) 1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-
122);
``(x) 1-pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-
398);
``(xi) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole
(AM2201);
``(xii) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole
(AM694);
``(xiii) 1-pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole (SR-
19 and RCS-4);
``(xiv) 1-cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-
methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (SR-18 and RCS-8); and
``(xv) 1-pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (JWH-
203).''.
(b) Other Drugs.--Schedule I of section 202(c) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended in subsection (c) by
adding at the end the following:
``(18) 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone).
``(19) 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV).
``(20) 3,4-methylenedioxymethcathinone (methylone).
``(21) Naphthylpyrovalerone (naphyrone).
``(22) 4-fluoromethcathinone (flephedrone).
``(23) 4-methoxymethcathinone (methedrone; Bk-PMMA).
``(24) Ethcathinone (N-Ethylcathinone).
``(25) 3,4-methylenedioxyethcathinone (ethylone).
``(26) Beta-keto-N-methyl-3,4-benzodioxyolybutanamine
(butylone).
``(27) N,N-dimethylcathinone (metamfepramone).
``(28) Alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (alpha-PPP).
``(29) 4-methoxy-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (MOPPP).
``(30) 3,4-methylenedioxy-alphapyrrolidinopropiophenone
(MDPPP).
``(31) Alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone (alpha-PVP).
``(32) 6,7-dihydro-5H-indeno-(5,6-d)-1,3-dioxol-6-amine)
(MDAI).
``(33) 3-fluoromethcathinone.
``(34) 4'-Methyl-a-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (MPBP).
``(35) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-E).
``(36) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-D).
``(37) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-C).
``(38) 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-I).
``(39) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-
2).
``(40) 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine
(2C-T-4).
``(41) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H).
``(42) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)ethanamine (2C-N).
``(43) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-
P).''.
SEC. 3. TEMPORARY SCHEDULING TO AVOID IMMINENT HAZARDS TO PUBLIC SAFETY
EXPANSION.
Section 201(h)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
811(h)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``2 years''; and
(2) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``1 year''.
Purpose and Summary
This bill places forty-one synthetic chemicals in Schedule
I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).\1\ It also defines
the term ``cannabimimetic agents'' to enable Federal law to
include and proscribe future, emerging synthetic marijuana
drugs. This bill increases the amount of time during which the
Attorney General can temporarily place drugs in Schedule I of
the CSA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(c).
\2\21 U.S.C. Sec. 811(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background and Need for the Legislation
This bill concerns the imminent and emerging threats posed
by three classes of synthetic drugs. These drugs have no
medical benefit, are abused by adolescents and adults on an
increasing and sometimes deadly scale, and are manufactured and
distributed without adherence to any safety standards.
Synthetic stimulants are substitutes for cocaine,
methamphetamine and the club-drug Ecstasy. These drugs are
intentionally mislabeled by their manufacturers as ``bath
salts'' or ``plant food'' to trick the purchaser into thinking
the drugs are mild or innocuous, and are labeled ``not for
human consumption'' to circumvent Federal law. In fact, they
are not bath salts or a bath product. Their only know purpose
is for consumption as a recreational drug. On October 21, 2011,
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) exercised its
emergency scheduling authority to control three of the most
abused synthetic stimulants seen today.
``Bath salts'' can have very harmful effects on its users.
Users have reported impaired perception, reduced motor control,
extreme paranoia and violent episodes. These synthetic drugs
have been popular among teens and young adults, and are sold at
retail outlets and over the Internet.
In March 2011, a Pennsylvania man, high on bath salts,
entered a monastery and stabbed a priest in the face. In May
2011, a 23-year old Florida man died due to a bath salts
overdose. In April 2011, following a 3-day bath salts binge,
another Pennsylvania man was injured after jumping out of
second story window, fleeing from imaginary intruders.
Recently, the epidemic use of bath salts has led to several
suicides and homicides throughout the United States. According
to data provided by the American Association of Poison Control
Centers, there were 303 calls to poison control centers in 2010
reporting exposures to bath salts. In the first half of 2011,
there were 4,137 calls--a 2,600 percent increase of such calls
in just one year.
Synthetic cannabinoids are man-made marijuana. Organic
plant matter is typically sprayed with a combination of
dangerous synthetic chemicals. These products are produced
without any quality control leading to widely varying dosages.
These drugs, sometimes branded as ``K2'' or ``Spice'' are
frequently labeled ``herbal incense'' to deceive the purchaser.
In March 2011, the DEA exercised its emergency scheduling
authority to temporarily place five synthetic cannabinoids in
schedule I.
There are many cases nationwide where people suffered from
high blood pressure, vomiting, extreme anxiety, tremors,
hallucinations, seizures and death after ingesting synthetic
cannabinoids. There were 2,915 calls to U.S. poison control
centers for exposure to synthetic cannabinoids for 2010. In
just the first half of 2011, there were 3,787 calls, on course
for a 150% increase in just one year.
Synthetic hallucinogens are sometimes referred to as ``2C''
compounds. They are chemical analogs of a class of drugs which
exert hallucinogenic and stimulant effects similar to
mescaline, only they are much more potent. Some 2C compounds
are already proscribed under Schedule I.
The 2C chemicals in this bill are unique and represent
another emerging synthetic drug problem causing an imminent
danger to the public health. Based on reports of individual
uses of these compounds and what is known of their
pharmacology, they have a high potential for abuse. They have
been implicated in dangerous side effects such as
hallucinations and death. The DEA has classified them as drugs
of significant concern, comparable to synthetic stimulants and
synthetic cannabinoids.
In March 2011, a mass overdose on 2C hallucinogens resulted
in a teenager's death and ten more teens taken to local
hospitals in Blaine, Minnesota, after a spring-break house
party. The seller of these 2C synthetic drugs was charged with
third degree murder for causing the teen's death.
These three classes of synthetic drugs have triggered
severe consequences. The effects on individuals vary widely,
from psychotic episodes to death. Permanent neurological
disorders have been documented in some users. The costs to
health care systems are also severe. Emergency room admissions
have increased significantly, frequently leading to patient
transfers to costly intensive care units. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has not approved any of these synthetic
drugs for human consumption or for medical use.
Synthetic stimulants and cannabinoids are illegal in
several states. As of October 2011, approximately 37 states
have enacted legislation prohibiting synthetic stimulants, and
41 states have enacted legislation prohibiting synthetic
cannabinoids. A Federal ban would permit the enforcement of
Federal drug trafficking laws, particularly with regards to
interstate trafficking of these substances, and enhance the
authority to seize these synthetic drugs as they enter the
United States.
The CSA permits the Attorney General to temporarily place
new and emerging drugs in Schedule I when they imminently
endanger the public health.\3\ During the temporary scheduling
period, several agencies including the FDA and the National
Institute on Drug Abuse conduct tests to assess the dangers of
these drugs. The bill seeks to double the time available to
place emerging drugs on Schedule I and to enhance the tools
available to law enforcement to combat the abuse of new and
emerging drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\21 U.S.C. Sec. 811(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of the bill, including many minority members of
the Committee, denounce the role of Congress in legislatively
scheduling these synthetic drugs, arguing instead that the
Administration should be the sole scheduling authority. This
assertion flies in the face of the legislative intent of the
CSA and over forty years of precedent. The CSA, by design,
classifies controlled substances on one of five schedules, each
with varying degrees of authorized distribution and use. This
structure is not trivial or haphazard. It is intended to allow
the law to conform to the ever-fluctuating controlled
substances market. More importantly, it was designed to
specifically allow for both legislative and administrative
scheduling. In fact, in the past 20 years, Congress has
legislatively scheduled over 50 controlled substances--the
Executive Branch has scheduled 31 substances.
Opponents also argue that placement of these synthetics on
Schedule I prohibits any further research on the substances.
This misstates the law. The CSA and its regulations clearly and
specifically allow for approved research of substances listed
in Schedule I.\4\ As of October 2011, nearly 4,000 individuals
or entities, those being manufacturers, bona fide researchers
and analytical laboratories, are authorized by the DEA to
handle Schedule I drugs for scientific and investigative
purposes. There are 325 researchers with credentials approved
by the DEA who may conduct tests on schedule I drugs. Research
and analysis of these synthetic drugs may be conducted subject
to the conditions already in place for all highly addictive and
dangerous drugs classified in Schedule I of the Controlled
Substances Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\21 USC Sec. 823(f); 21 CFR 1301.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011, was
introduced by Mr. Dent on March 30, 2011. The bill was referred
to the Energy and Commerce Committee and secondarily to the
House Committee on the Judiciary. The Energy and Commerce
Committee, Health Subcommittee held a hearing on July 21, 2011.
The Health Subcommittee marked up and reported the bill on July
26, 2011. The Energy and Commerce Committee marked up and
reported the bill on July 28, 2011. The House Committee on the
Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 1254.
Committee Consideration
On October 6, 2011, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism
and Homeland Security discharged the bill. On October 27, 2011
and November 3, 2011, the Committee met in open session and
mark-up sessions were held. On November 3, 2011, the Committee
met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 1254 favorably
reported with an amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being
present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 1254.
1. An amendment to strike Section 3, which doubles the
length of time the Attorney General can temporarily schedule a
drug in emergency situations. Amendment #3 by Mr. Cohen (TN)
failed 6-13.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
(Vacant)........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 6 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An amendment to exclude simple possession offenses from
the ambit of this bill. Amendment #6 by Mr. Scott (VA) failed
6-14.
ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 6 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. An amendment to require the Attorney General to consult
a peer-reviewed independent scientific body before making any
change to the drug schedules. Amendment #13 by Mr. Cohen (TN)
failed 5-14.
ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 5 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. An amendment ordering an evaluation and report to
Congress regarding the drug scheduling process and the existing
drug control schedules. Amendment #4 by Mr. Nadler (NY) failed
4-14.
ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 4 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. An amendment to exclude the synthetic drugs added to
Schedule I by this bill from the application of mandatory
minimum sentences. Amendment #7 by Mr. Scott (VA) failed 6-16.
ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 6 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair
passed 13-4. Amendment 8 by Mr. Scott (VA).
ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 13 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair
passed 13-4. Amendment #10 by Ms. Jackson Lee (TX).
ROLLCALL NO. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu.........................................................
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 13 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 1254, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 9, 2011.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1254, the
``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 1254--Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.
As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on
November 3, 2011
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1254 would have no
significant cost to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill
could affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any
effects would be insignificant for each year.
H.R. 1254 would expand the list of substances regulated
under the Controlled Substances Act (title II of Public Law 91-
513, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
1970) to include cannabimimetic agents, chemicals that are
commonly known as synthetic drugs. As a result, the government
might be able to pursue cases involving drug use that it
otherwise would not be able to prosecute. CBO expects that H.R.
1254 would apply to a relatively small number of additional
offenders, however, so any increase in costs for law
enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not
be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1254
could be subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted.
Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime
Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO expects that any additional
revenues and direct spending would not be significant because
of the small number of cases likely to be affected.
H.R. 1254 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no
costs on State, local, or tribal governments.
H.R. 1254 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined
in UMRA, on manufacturers, sellers, and consumers of certain
synthetic chemicals. CBO estimates that the cost of complying
with those mandates would probably exceed the annual threshold
established in UMRA for private-sector mandates in the first
year after enactment ($142 million in 2011, adjusted annually
for inflation).
By adding selected chemical compounds to schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act, the bill would prohibit the sale,
distribution, or use of those chemicals without a permit issued
by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The cost of that
prohibition would be the forgone income from lost sales and the
value of the inventory of the banned products. Because of the
nature of the market being regulated, the scope of sales
affected is difficult to determine. Some industry experts
estimate that the profits generated by the sale of products
containing such synthetic chemicals amount to billions of
dollars annually.
However, based on information from industry and law
enforcement experts, CBO expects that, by the date of the
legislation's enactment, most vendors will have largely
replaced the banned substances with new products because many
States have already passed legislation banning some or all of
the compounds listed in the bill and because the DEA has
already issued emergency rules temporarily banning five
cannabimimetic agents and three synthetic stimulants. Thus, the
cost of the mandate would be much smaller than the profits
currently being earned in the industry. Given the estimated
magnitude of industry profits, however, it would only require
about a 5 percent to 10 percent decrease in profits for the
costs to exceed the annual threshold for private-sector
mandates. Consequently, CBO estimates that the cost of the
mandate would probably exceed the annual threshold in the first
year following enactment. Thereafter, costs would be minimal,
CBO estimates.
The bill also would impose a mandate by prohibiting the
unregistered possession of the banned compounds, requiring
individuals and facilities that wish to use or handle the
chemicals to register with the DEA. Individuals who are unable
to obtain DEA approval would have to dispose of the banned
chemicals in their possession. CBO expects that the cost to
those individuals would be small. Because some of those
compounds have been temporarily placed under schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act by two emergency rules issued by the
DEA in 2011, most researchers investigating those synthetic
compounds have already registered with the DEA. The legislation
would not require them to register again with the DEA;
therefore, CBO expects the cost of the mandate to private
research facilities to be small.
On October 14, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
H.R. 1254, the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011,'' as
ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
on July 28, 2011. The two versions of the bill are similar, and
the estimated costs are the same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz
(for Federal costs) and Michael Levine (for the impact on the
private sector). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
1254 places several synthetic drugs in Schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act and increases the Attorney General's
authority to temporarily schedule future, emerging drugs.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 1254 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Sec. 1: Short Title
Section 1 provides that the short title of H.R. 1254 is the
``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.''
Sec. 2: Addition of Synthetic Drugs to Schedule I of the Controlled
Substances Act.
Section 2(a) places 15 synthetic marijuana drugs in
Schedule I. It also defines the term ``cannabimimetic agents''
as substances which have a certain effect on receptors in the
brain. This will enable Federal law to include and proscribe
future, emerging synthetic marijuana drugs. Section 2(b) places
26 synthetic stimulant drugs and synthetic hallucinogenic drugs
in Schedule I.
Sec. 3: Temporary Scheduling to Avoid Imminent Hazards to Public Safety
Expansion.
Section 3 doubles the amount of time during which the
Attorney General can temporarily place drugs in Schedule I of
the Controlled Substances Act. Currently, if the Attorney
General finds that scheduling on a temporary basis is necessary
to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, he may do so
for up to one year and may extend for up to six months. This
section would permit temporary scheduling for up to two years
with a possible one-year extension.
Agency Views
__________
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
TITLE II--CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
* * * * * * *
Part B--Authority To Control; Standards and Schedules
AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSTANCES
Sec. 201. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) * * *
(2) The scheduling of a substance under this subsection shall
expire at the end of [one year] 2 years from the date of the
issuance of the order scheduling such substance, except that
the Attorney General may, during the pendency of proceedings
under subsection (a)(1) with respect to the substance, extend
the temporary scheduling for up to [six months] 1 year.
* * * * * * *
SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
Sec. 202. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until
amended pursuant to section 201, consist of the following drugs
or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual
name, chemical name, or brand name designated:
Schedule I
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another
schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation,
which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic
substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and
salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers,
and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical
designation:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(18) 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone).
(19) 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV).
(20) 3,4-methylenedioxymethcathinone (methylone).
(21) Naphthylpyrovalerone (naphyrone).
(22) 4-fluoromethcathinone (flephedrone).
(23) 4-methoxymethcathinone (methedrone; Bk-PMMA).
(24) Ethcathinone (N-Ethylcathinone).
(25) 3,4-methylenedioxyethcathinone (ethylone).
(26) Beta-keto-N-methyl-3,4-benzodioxyolybutanamine
(butylone).
(27) N,N-dimethylcathinone (metamfepramone).
(28) Alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (alpha-PPP).
(29) 4-methoxy-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone
(MOPPP).
(30) 3,4-methylenedioxy-alphapyrrolidinopropiophenone
(MDPPP).
(31) Alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone (alpha-PVP).
(32) 6,7-dihydro-5H-indeno-(5,6-d)-1,3-dioxol-6-
amine) (MDAI).
(33) 3-fluoromethcathinone.
(34) 4'-Methyl-a-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (MPBP).
(35) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-
E).
(36) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-
D).
(37) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-
C).
(38) 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-I).
(39) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine
(2C-T-2).
(40) 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-2,5-
dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-4).
(41) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H).
(42) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)ethanamine (2C-
N).
(43) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)ethanamine
(2C-P).
(d)(1) Unless specifically exempted or unless listed in
another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or
preparation which contains any quantity of cannabimimetic
agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of
isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and
salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical
designation.
(2) In paragraph (1):
(A) The term ``cannabimimetic agents'' means any
substance that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1
receptor) agonist as demonstrated by binding studies
and functional assays within any of the following
structural classes:
(i) 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol with
substitution at the 5-position of the phenolic
ring by alkyl or alkenyl, whether or not
substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any
extent.
(ii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 3-(1-
naphthylmethane)indole by substitution at the
nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or
not further substituted on the indole ring to
any extent, whether or not substituted on the
naphthoyl or naphthyl ring to any extent.
(iii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution
at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring,
whether or not further substituted in the
pyrrole ring to any extent, whether or not
substituted on the naphthoyl ring to any
extent.
(iv) 1-(1-naphthylmethylene)indene by
substitution of the 3-position of the indene
ring, whether or not further substituted in the
indene ring to any extent, whether or not
substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent.
(v) 3-phenylacetylindole or 3-benzoylindole
by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the
indole ring, whether or not further substituted
in the indole ring to any extent, whether or
not substituted on the phenyl ring to any
extent.
(B) Such term includes--
(i) 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497);
(ii) 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol
or CP-47,497 C8-homolog);
(iii) 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018
and AM678);
(iv) 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073);
(v) 1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019);
(vi) 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-
naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200);
(vii) 1-pentyl-3-(2-
methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-250);
(viii) 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-
methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (JWH-081);
(ix) 1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole
(JWH-122);
(x) 1-pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole
(JWH-398);
(xi) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole
(AM2201);
(xii) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2-
iodobenzoyl)indole (AM694);
(xiii) 1-pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole
(SR-19 and RCS-4);
(xiv) 1-cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-
methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (SR-18 and RCS-8);
and
(xv) 1-pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole
(JWH-203).
* * * * * * *
Dissenting Views
INTRODUCTION
H.R. 1254, the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011,''
represents an end-run around existing law for criminalizing new
substances. This bill would add more than 40 synthetic chemical
compounds to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act
(``CSA'') with virtually no empirical evidence to demonstrate
that such scheduling is warranted. Adding dozens of substances
to Schedule I, the schedule that carries the most serious
prohibitions and penalties for drug crimes, without the benefit
of any meaningful process, is a mistake. H.R. 1254 will
seriously hinder legitimate research, subject low-level users
to Federal prosecution, waste resources, and do little to
further its purported goal of reducing substance abuse.
These problems, as well as numerous other concerns, have
prompted ten organizations to oppose the bill, including the
American Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Alliance, Justice
Policy Institute, National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, National Association of Social Workers, The Sentencing
Project, StoptheDrugWar.org, Students for a Sensible Drug
Policy,\1\ and Families Against Mandatory Minimums
(``FAMM'').\2\ In addition, several researchers from the
University of California, Irvine, the University of California,
Berkeley, the University of California, San Francisco, and the
University of Wisconsin-Madison have also expressed serious
concern that H.R. 1254 will impede legitimate, scientific
research.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Letter to House Committee on the Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith
and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. from the American Civil American
Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Alliance, Justice Policy Institute,
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Social
Workers, The Sentencing Project, StoptheDrugWar.org, Students for a
Sensible Drug Policy (Oct. 4, 2011) (``Sign-On Letter'').
\2\See Letter to House Committee on the Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith
and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. from Families Against Mandatory
Minimums (Oct. 5, 2011) (``FAMM Letter'').
\3\See Letter to House Committee on the Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith
and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. from Richard Chamberlin, Professor
of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Services, Chair of Pharmaceutical
Sciences, University of California, Irvine (Oct. 31, 2011) (``UCI
Letter''); see also ``Views on Synthetic Drug Control Act'' (``Views
Memo'') (on file with H.Comm. on the Judiciary, Dem. Staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, and those described below, we
respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to reject this
seriously flawed bill.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
H.R. 1254 would place on Schedule I numerous chemical
compounds commonly found in a class of synthetic drugs known as
K2 and Spice that imitate marijuana, and a second class of
synthetic drugs that have stimulant properties and often
contain mephedrone. Schedule I is the most restrictive and
punitive schedule under the CSA. The bill also doubles the
period of time that the Attorney General may temporarily place
a substance on Schedule I (from 1 to 2 years) and doubles the
length for an extension of temporarily scheduling (from 6
months to 1 year), all without requiring any medical or
scientific evidence.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\An amendment offered by Rep. Cohen to strike this portion of
H.R. 1254 was defeated by a vote of 6-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judiciary Committee has not held any hearings or
subcommittee markups regarding this legislation or the related
issues. While the Energy and Commerce Committee did hold a
hearing on March 30, 2011 to ``Address Bioterrorism, Controlled
Substances and Public Health Issues,'' the sole witness was
Representative Dent, the sponsor of the bill. On July 28, 2011,
the Energy and Commerce Committee agreed by voice vote to
favorably report H.R. 1254 with one technical amendment.
Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee have raised
serious concerns regarding the lack of Judiciary Committee
process on H.R. 1254. On October 3, 2011 Ranking Member John
Conyers, Jr. (D-MI); Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
Subcommittee Ranking Member Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA);
along with Representatives Steve Cohen (D-TN); Henry C.
``Hank'' Johnson (D-GA); Melvin L. Watt (D-NC); Pedro R
Pierluisi (D-PR); Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); and Jerrold Nadler
(D-NY) wrote to Chairman Smith and Subcommittee Chairman
Sensenbrenner requesting a hearing to consider numerous
concerns about this legislation before markup.\5\ This request
was denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See Letter to House Committee on the Judiciary Chair Rep. Lamar
Smith and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Chair
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. from House Committee on the Judiciary
Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. et al. (Oct. 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCERNS WITH H.R. 1254
I. H.R. 1254 CIRCUMVENTS THE NORMAL SCHEDULING PROCESS AND CRIMINALIZES
NUMEROUS SUBSTANCES WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC OR MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT DOING SO
Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 811 sets forth the process for placing
a substance on Schedule I. It requires that the Attorney
General request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(Secretary) ``a scientific and medical evaluation, and his
recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substances
should be so controlled. . . .'' The Secretary must engage in
an eight-factor analysis, which includes an evaluation of
``[t]he state of current scientific knowledge regarding the
drug or other substance[;] [w]hat, if any, risk there is to the
public health[;] [i]ts actual or relative potential for
abuse[;] and [i]ts psychic or physiological dependence
liability[,]'' among other factors.
H.R. 1254 circumvents this statutory process and would
place 46 substances on Schedule I, with virtually no science to
support the conclusion that these substances need to be
criminalized. Even the Director of the Office of the National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) R. Gil Kerlikowske recognized that
there is ``a lack of sufficient data regarding the prevalence
of bath salt stimulant drugs.''\6\ Although Representative
Adams claimed at the markup that there were boxes of research
on the substances at issue, no report or other document with an
analysis of the 46 substances was presented at the markup.
Moreover, the appropriate forum for such evidence to be
presented and discussed is at a hearing, however, the majority
denied a request for a hearing to examine these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Congressional Research Service, Synthetic Drugs: Overview and
Issues for Congress, at 12 (Oct. 28, 2011) (``CRS Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A decision to federalize a substance and subject
individuals to harsh penalties is serious. A bill that allows
for Federal prohibition of numerous substances--even some that
are not yet present in the United States--is problematic
especially without scientific evidence.\7\ Several amendments
offered by the Minority sought to address the dearth of
evidence and refine the scheduling process, but all were
defeated. For example, Representative Scott offered an
amendment to require empirical evidence before criminalizing
these substances, similar to what is required under Sec. 811.
His amendment, however, was defeated by voice vote.
Representative Cohen offered an amendment that would have
required the Attorney General to consult with a peer-reviewed,
independent scientific organization before scheduling
substances in the future. His amendment was defeated by a vote
of 5 to 14. And, Representative Nadler offered an amendment
that would have required a study of the scheduling process
generally. It was defeated by a vote of 4 to 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\To date, the Drug Enforcement Agency (``DEA'') has temporarily
scheduled eight synthetic substances. These are the only substances
currently present in the United States. Because temporary scheduling,
unlike legislative scheduling, requires a partial analysis of the
substances by the Attorney General, Rep. Scott offered an amendment to
limit H.R. 1254 to placing those eight substances on Schedule I. This
amendment was defeated by voice vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. H.R. 1254 WILL HINDER MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Schedule I designation would hinder ongoing and future
research aimed at better understanding these compounds and
their possible medical use. This is particularly concerning in
the case of synthetic cannabinoids, where research is underway
with regard to whether they have the same medicinal benefit as
marijuana. Notably, Clemson University Professor John F.
Huffman, the first to synthesize cannabinoids, is ``against
adding synthetic cannabinoids to Schedule I, asserting that
there is still much to learn about synthetic cannabinoids and
that placing them on Schedule I would create too many hurdles
for researchers who need access to these drugs. Professor
Huffman has created several synthetic cannabinoids that are
seen as showing promise in treating skin cancers, pain, and
inflammation.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\CRS Report at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several other researchers and scientists have expressed
serious concerns that H.R. 1254 would impede research in ways
perhaps not intended by supporters of the bill. Researchers at
the University of California at Irvine have indicated that
scheduling these substances will significantly hinder
research.\9\ The chair of the chemistry department believes
that ``classifying a broad list of chemicals as Schedule I
would be an outright disaster for biochemical research!''\10\
He goes on to note that the same structural components that
make very potent drugs of abuse are also found in leading
medications and new drug leads for a variety of important
diseases such as Parkinson's disease and other neurological
disorders.\11\ Another professor of chemistry and chair of
pharmaceutical sciences said that the problem with the bill's
blanket coverage is that all of the compounds on the list have
many potential uses as building blocks for other organic
molecules with absolutely no relationship to cannabinoid
receptors or hallucinogens. . . .''\12\ His concerns were
echoed by yet another professor who indicated that he and his
colleagues ``have been repeatedly hampered by the restrictive
treatment of mundane `precursor compounds' such as piperidine''
and described the numerous hoops that they must jump through to
study them.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\UCI Letter at 1.
\10\Id.
\11\Id. at 1-2.
\12\Id. at 1.
\13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, a professor of medicine and bioengineering and
therapeutic services, and the Chief of the Division of Clinical
Pharmacology at the University of California, San Francisco,
stated that ``scheduling so as to impede access to precursor
chemicals in small quantities has the potential to seriously
hamper medical research. On balance the faculty are against
this measure.''\14\ Researchers from the University of
California, Berkeley also echoed these concerns.\15\ Even
further, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences and Associate
Dean for Research at the School of Pharmacy at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison stated that as a result of this bill ``the
world will get significantly less medical and technical help
with a low probability of helping anyone with a substance abuse
issue. The list is too broad and does seriously restrict what
would otherwise be important and easy experiments.''\16\
Although the DEA disputes that research will be hampered, the
opinions of legitimate and well-established faculty at numerous
universities cannot be ignored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Views Memo at 1.
\15\Id.
\16\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. BY ADDING NEW SUBSTANCES TO SCHEDULE I, H.R. 1254 WOULD CREATE
FEDERAL PENALTIES AND EXPAND A MANDATORY MINIMUM FOR SUBSTANCES ABOUT
WHICH WE KNOW VERY LITTLE
Although H.R. 1254 itself does not set forth penalties, all
of the substances that will be added to Schedule I will be
subject to the already existing penalty structure in Title 21.
This includes the expansion of at least one mandatory minimum,
21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(C). In other words, these substances will
be treated the same, for purposes of charging and sentencing,
as the drugs that they seek to mimic, without any evidence that
they possess the same health hazards. This is because, as the
DEA acknowledges, little is known at the present time about
these substances. Under the normal statutory scheduling
process, the DEA, the Food & Drug Administration and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services would have the
opportunity to determine whether treating these substances in
the same fashion as other Schedule I substances is warranted.
However, H.R. 1254 completely bypasses this important process.
The problem with mandatory minimums is that they must be
imposed regardless of whether the sentencing judge agrees or
disagrees with the sentence.\17\ In a letter to the Chair and
Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Families Against
Mandatory Minimums describes an instance where a Federal judge
in a case involving 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(C) felt that the
defendant was deserving of a shorter sentence, but had no
choice but to impose 20 years in prison.\18\ The bill removes
discretion from the judge, who is in the best position to
determine a fair sentence as he or she has considered all of
the evidence and has heard from the parties and the defendant.
This concern is heightened when the underlying crime involves
synthetic substances that we know very little about.
Nevertheless, when Representative Scott offered an amendment to
exclude 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(C) from the application of this
bill, it was defeated by a vote of 6 to 16. As an alternative,
Representative Scott then offered an amendment that would have
allowed a judge to apply 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(f) (known as ``the
safety valve'') to cases involving synthetic drugs, it was
objected to on germaneness grounds. A motion to table the
appeal of the ruling of the chair passed by a vote of 13 to 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\FAMM Letter
\18\Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMM is not the only organization that objects to H.R. 1254
because of its stiff penalties and scant scientific evidence to
support imposition of such penalties. For instance, the Drug
Policy Alliance believes H.R. 1254 ``would invariably lead to
the prosecution and incarceration of low to mid level offenders
who could be prosecuted by the States where treatment or
diversion opportunities are available.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Letter from Drug Policy Alliance (``DPA'') at 1 (July 26, 2011)
(``DPA Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of the bill assert that their goal is to
apprehend importers, traffickers, and large distributors of
synthetic substances. They also claim to be concerned with
young people who may tend to experiment with these substances.
It should be noted, however, that these young people are the
same individuals who would face prosecution for use and
possession under this bill. As the American Civil Liberties
Union, Justice Policy Institute, the National Association of
Social Workers, and the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, among others, jointly observed,
``Youth would be better served by a proactive effort by
Congress to fund studies and evaluations that give the public,
lawmakers and health authorities a better understanding of the
health implications of synthetic drugs.''\20\ Nevertheless,
when Representative Scott offered an amendment to exclude the
offense of simple possession from the bill's applicability, not
a single Majority member supported it. It was defeated by a
vote of 6 to 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Sign-On Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. H.R. 1254 REPRESENTS A RUSH TO CRIMINALIZE SUBSTANCES, WHEN THERE
IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CRIMINALIZATION WILL ACTUALLY REDUCE DEMAND OR
PREVENT DEATHS
There is little evidence that criminalizing these
substances will result in favorable outcomes for public health
and safety. The United Kingdom's experience is instructive. In
2010, the United Kingdom added mephedrone to its schedule of
prohibited substances in an effort to curb its use. An article,
however, published in The Lancet, a British medical journal,
described a survey of mephedrone users completed in June 2010,
and compared this survey with a previous survey completed in
2009. The results of these surveys on what occurred after the
scheduling of mephedrone in the United Kingdom were the
following: (1) most survey respondents stated that they would
continue to use the same amount of mephedrone; (2) prices on
average had doubled; and (3) illegal sellers made greater
profits as a result of the price increase.\21\ In other words,
adding these substances to the schedule of prohibited
substances will not curb use, but will simply put more money in
the pockets of sellers and traffickers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Mephedrone: Still Available and Twice the Price, The Lancet,
Vol. 136 (Nov. 6, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the public reaction and media reports about the
effects of synthetic drugs on individuals and the safety
hazards of these substances echoes the crack cocaine hysteria
of the 1980's. When Congress rushed to act then, it passed a
law that devastated the African-American community and took two
decades to remedy. Congress only partially repealed this unfair
law last year, with the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act. We
should be cautious not to make a similar fear-driven mistake
with synthetic drugs, as it too could have far-reaching,
unintended consequences. In recognition of the fact that little
is known about the effects of this bill, Representative Jackson
Lee offered an amendment requiring the Attorney General, in
consultation with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, to
conduct a demographic study of users of synthetic drugs. Her
amendment, however, was ruled non-germane and a motion to table
the appeal of the ruling passed by a vote of 13 to 4.
Proponents of H.R. 1254 point to press accounts of
tragedies that have befallen individuals who have abused
synthetic substances as justification for criminalizing these
substances. As was revealed during the markup, however,
criminalization by states of these substances has not prevented
deaths.\22\ There is simply no reason to believe, nor any
evidence to indicate, that Federal scheduling will achieve any
different results. It would be much more prudent for Congress
to develop education campaigns and ad councils to raise
awareness of the dangers of synthetic drugs, rather than
criminalize these substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\See, e.g., ``How `bath salts' led to suicide, Virginia Gazette
(October 8, 2011), available at http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2011/
10/08/news/doc4e8f78d6557cf829866915.txt (last visited November 17,
2011) (noting that the Virginia Assembly passed legislation earlier
this year making substances at issue in this article illegal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. H.R. 1254 PROVIDES AN EXPENSIVE FEDERAL SOLUTION TO A FUNDAMENTALLY
LOCAL PROBLEM
The need for Federal intervention is particularly
questionable when at least 30 states have already enacted
legislation criminalizing synthetic drugs, and more states have
legislation pending. States are assessing the situation and
enacting laws accordingly. Nonetheless, proponents fail to
justify why the Federal Government must act or why state laws
are inadequate. As the Drug Policy Alliance notes,
``Prohibiting these substances at the Federal level would
expand the reach of the Federal Government into the territory
reserved for state governments.''\23\ Nonetheless, for cases
that warrant Federal prosecution, the DEA can utilize the
analog statute, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 813. This statute allows the DEA
to prosecute substances that are chemically and
pharmacologically similar to a substance already on a schedule
(e.g., synthetic cocaine). This is an appropriate option in
serious and large trafficking cases, where there may be an
interest that is served in prosecuting the matter federally,
rather than locally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\DPA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passage of this proposal would also stifle efforts by state
lawmakers to tailor policy to fit the needs of their
communities. For example, a number of states have implemented
an array of creative and innovative approaches designed to
divert low-level offenders from arrest or incarceration. H.R.
1254, on the other hand, would compel, and in some cases
require, state lawmakers to adopt criminal penalties identical
to those mandated under the CSA. Accordingly, this bill
overrides state law and ties the hands of state lawmakers from
pursuing more effective policies and evidence-based approaches
to respond to the emergence of synthetic drugs. Lawmakers in
the sixteen states with medical marijuana policies in place are
also increasingly seeking resolution of the federal-state
conflict that has undermined local efforts. This legislation
would introduce more conflict and confusion at the state and
local level.
In addition, the arrests and prosecutions that will result
from this legislation will require the allocation of new
funding at a time when Congress is focusing on reducing
government spending and prison populations. H.R. 1254 does not
provide offsets for the new spending it would require or any
estimate of the scope of this additional spending. Although the
Congressional Budget Office (``CBO'') concludes that the
effects of this bill would be insignificant,\24\ it fails to
address the hidden costs of arrest, prosecution, and
corrections (incarceration and supervision). Given that a
single marijuana arrest (along with subsequent prosecution and
punishments) costs taxpayers more than $10,000 on average,\25\
and that the bill adds 46 new substances to Schedule I, the
CBO's conclusion is not realistic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Cong. Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 1254 at 1 (November
9, 2011).
\25\John B. Gettman, Crimes of Indiscretion: Marijuana Arrests in
the United States, George Mason University School of Public Policy
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Congressional Research Service notes in its report on
this topic, ``The growing Federal prison population and prison
crowding continue to be concerns for the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) as well as for policymakers.''\26\ It is important, given
our current fiscal crisis, to fully consider the economic cost
of implementing this legislation. In response to these
concerns, Representative Jackson Lee offered an amendment
requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct a
fiscal analysis of the bill and its enforcement. Her amendment,
however, was defeated by voice vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\CRS Report at 12. The report further notes:
The number of inmates held in BOP facilities grew from
125,560 in FY 2000 to 180,725 as of September 2011. From
FY2000-FY2010, prison overcrowding grew from 32% over rated
capacity to 37% over rated capacity, despite the fact that
the number of facilities operated by BOP increased from 97
to 116. The growing Federal prison population has not only
resulted in more crowded prisons, but it has also strained
BOP's ability to properly manage and care for Federal
inmates. Given that a majority of the Federal prison
population is incarcerated for drug-related offenses,
Congress may question the potential effect on the prison
population and crowding should it move to schedule
additional substances. It is unknown whether BOP, in the
current fiscal environment, is able to accommodate
increases in the number of inmates and the number of
inmates requiring special services.
CONCLUSION
H.R. 1254 represents an ill-advised rush to criminalize
synthetic substances about which little is known. The
unintended consequences of this legislation are substantial. It
will seriously hinder legitimate research and encourage
prosecution of low-level users, both which do nothing to
address the public safety issues that supporters of the bill
seek to address. Rather than focus on a punitive law
enforcement oriented response, the public would be better
served by measures that address the root causes of substance
abuse, expand substance abuse treatment, and create public
awareness campaigns to educate the community, particularly
youth, about the dangers of abusing synthetic drugs. For these
reasons, we must respectfully dissent.
John Conyers, Jr.
Jerrold Nadler.
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
Melvin L. Watt
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Steve Cohen.
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.