71–314 

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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

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). 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

1 21 U.S.C. § 812(c). 

2 21 U.S.C. § 811(h)(2). 

‘‘(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-α-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

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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

3 21 U.S.C. § 811(h)(2). 

4 21 USC § 823(f); 21 CFR 1301.18. 

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. 

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. 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

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 markup 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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

(Vacant) ............................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 6 13 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

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. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

(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 ..........................................................................................................


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

ROLLCALL NO. 3—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

(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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

(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 ........................................................................................................


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

ROLLCALL NO. 5—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

(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. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

(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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

ROLLCALL NO. 7—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

(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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

Agency Views 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR1254A-1.eps
16 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR1254A-2.eps
17 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR1254A-3.eps
18 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR1254A-4.eps
19 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR1254A-5.eps
20 

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 øone 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 øsix 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). 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

(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-α-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. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

1See 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 Sen-

(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 lowlevel 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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

tencing Project, StoptheDrugWar.org, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (Oct. 4, 2011) (‘‘SignOn Letter’’). 2See 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’’). 3See 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). 4 An amendment offered by Rep. Cohen to strike this portion of H.R. 1254 was defeated by 

a vote of 6–13. 5See 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). 

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

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

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. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

6 Congressional Research Service, Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress, at 12 

(Oct. 28, 2011) (‘‘CRS Report’’). 7To 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. 

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. § 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. 

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 § 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. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

8 CRS Report at 13. 

9 UCI Letter at 1. 

10 Id. 11 Id. at 1–2. 12 Id. at 1. 13 Id. 14 Views Memo at 1. 15 Id. 

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

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

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 otherVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:44 Nov 22, 2011 Jkt 071314 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR295P2.XXX HR295P2

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

16 Id. 17FAMM Letter 18 Id. at 3. 19Letter from Drug Policy Alliance (‘‘DPA’’) at 1 (July 26, 2011) (‘‘DPA Letter’’). 

wise 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. 

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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 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. 

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

Supporters of the bill assert that their goal is to apprehend importers, traffickers, and large distributors of synthetic substances. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

20Sign-On Letter at 2. 21Mephedrone: Still Available and Twice the Price, The Lancet, Vol. 136 (Nov. 6, 2010). 

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. 

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

22See, 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). 23DPA Letter. 24 Cong. Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 1254 at 1 (November 9, 2011). 

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. 

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. § 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. 

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 mariVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:44 Nov 22, 2011 Jkt 071314 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR295P2.XXX HR295P2

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

25 John B. Gettman, Crimes of Indiscretion: Marijuana Arrests in the United States, GEORGE

MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY (2005). 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. 

juana 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. 

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. 

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. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING