U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–165 PDF 2016

SYNTHETIC DRUGS, REAL DANGER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 17, 2016 

Serial No. 114–66 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 

JOE GRAUPENSPERGER, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 17, 2016 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Ken Buck a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations .................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 2 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

Louis J. Milione, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

William Smith, Jr., Fraternal Order of Police 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

Devin Eckhardt, Founder of the Connor Project Foundation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30 

David Earl Nichols, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 37 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations ......................... 54 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary. This material 

is available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104923 

(1) 

SYNTHETIC DRUGS, REAL DANGER 

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Ken Buck, 

(acting Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Buck, Goodlatte, Gohmert, Bishop, Labrador, Conyers, Jackson Lee, and Chu. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Robert Parmiter, Counsel; Scott Johnson, Clerk; Zachary Somers, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; 

(Minority) Joe Graupensperger, Minority Counsel; and Veronica 

Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. BUCK. The Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the 

Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any 

time. We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on synthetic 

drugs, and I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

Last week, the House took significant steps forward in combating 

the opioid epidemic in America. Today, this Subcommittee will examine a related but equally important issue: the scourge of synthetic drugs in the United States. Simply put, synthetic drugs are 

a prime example of how criminals can stay one step ahead of law 

enforcement. 

Today, parents have to worry not only about a child’s exposure 

to illegal drugs, but about synthetic drugs, many of which are produced and marketed directly at children and young adults. Synthetic cannabinoids, with names like Spice, K2, or Scooby Snax, 

come in brightly-colored packaging, often containing cartoon characters or other decorations to make them attractive to teenagers. 

Additionally, they are being marketed and sold as legal alternatives to marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Thus young people believe them to be safe, legal alternatives. However, they are addictive and deadly. That is because these drugs while designed to 

mimic the effects of certain illegal drugs, often contain a panoply 

of additional chemicals which can cause increased heart rate, psychosis, and death. 
2 

The professor who is widely credited with first synthesizing 

cannabinoids for research purposes, Dr. John Huffman of Clemson 

University, has said, ‘‘These things are dangerous. Anybody who 

uses them is playing Russian roulette. They have profound psychological effects. We never intended them for human consumption.’’ 

Indeed, they are often labeled as not for human consumption. 

But everyone, the manufacturer, seller, and the user, knows they 

are intended to be consumed. Many States have banned these substances by adding them to their controlled substance schedules 

which has resulted in a patchwork of State laws. Congress has also 

legislatively scheduled some of these substances, most recently in 

2012. 

However, the problem is that as soon as the substance is scheduled, or the process begins to schedule a substance, the manufacturers of these illicit drugs simply change a single atom, and the 

substance is different, and no longer a scheduled substance. Its 

chemical makeup has been altered slightly, and though it may 

have the same effect on the body, it is no longer the same chemically. The process has been short circuited. However, the need for 

a Federal response remains clear, since most synthetic drugs are 

manufactured and imported overseas, especially from China. 

In just a month, in 2014, synthetic marijuana poisoned more 

than 200 people in my home State of Colorado and killed at least 

one. The Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler described people trying to cut their own heads off and set themselves 

on fire after using synthetic drugs. In my State, these drugs have 

been marketed as synthetic marijuana, and sold at tobacco shops 

and convenience stores often for a profit of 300 percent or more. It 

is big business and these manufacturers are profiting off of our 

misery. 

I thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee 

today and look forward to their participation. I now recognize the 

Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers from Michigan, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the witnesses. I look forward to an important discussion. We are going to 

talk about synthetic drugs, a problem that is primarily affecting 

adolescents and young adults, and I wish to welcome our witnesses 

and express my gratitude to them for taking time to come here, 

offer their personal experiences and insight. 

The abuse of synthetic drugs, or designer drugs, has been recognized as far back as the 1980’s. Producers of these drugs work continuously to create legal alternatives to controlled substances like 

marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, and opioids that produce similar 

kinds of highs. Sometimes packaged in small, shiny packets with 

images of cartoon characters printed on them, and names like K2, 

Spice, Vanilla Sky, and Scooby Snax, these products are marketed 

as a harmless good time. Unsuspecting teenagers and young 

adults, who are the primary consumers of these products, can purchase so-called synthetic marijuana or bath salts at gas stations, 

convenience stores, novelty shops, and over the Internet for further 

reinforcing the erroneous belief that these products are safe. 

However, in many cases, they are more potent and more hazardous than the controlled substances that they are meant to imi-
3 

tate. The chemical used to create synthetic drugs can be toxic to 

the human body, producing extreme paranoia, violent behavior, aggression, hallucinations, seizures, and even death. Synthetic drug 

use has even been linked to heart attacks, psychosis, and suicides. 

Instead of attending their child’s football game or graduation or 

helping them complete college applications, parents find themselves in hospital rooms praying their teenager wakes from a coma 

or in emergency rooms hoping their child will regain their sanity 

and return to college. 

There are mechanisms in current law to allow for these drugs to 

be evaluated and controlled on a case-by-case basis. For instance, 

the DEA has the ability to temporarily place substances on Schedule I, when it is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public 

safety. 

However, the DEA is finding it difficult to keep pace with the development and production of new substances that are not currently 

illegal. Prosecutors have an additional tool, the Analog Enforcement Act of 1986, to prosecute those who produce synthetic drugs. 

This legislation serves as a method of criminalizing synthetic drugs 

without having to ban them individually. We in Congress need to 

learn more about these drugs and that is why this hearing is important, and consider if legislation is needed. And we must be careful to craft an appropriate response that does not over-criminalize 

or over-penalize. I thank our witnesses for their time and the benefit of their expertise. 

I look forward to a discussion of this troubling issue. I thank the 

Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. I would now like to recognize the full Committee Chairman, Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia, for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be 

here today as the Judiciary Committee continues its efforts to protect the American people from the real and growing danger of drug 

abuse. Last week, this Committee moved five bills through the 

House that will help law enforcement and the treatment community address the opioid epidemic, so this hearing is very timely. I 

want to focus my remarks today on the threat of synthetic opioids 

which present a critical threat to the American people. 

As we all know, the principle driver of the opioid epidemic in this 

Nation has been the overabundance of prescription pain pills in the 

hands of consumers, especially opioids like oxycodone and 

hydrocodone. America’s addiction to opioids has, of course, been noticed in the criminal underworld, and malefactors have taken big 

steps to profit off America’s pain. 

One way they have done this is through the production of synthetic opioids, including counterfeit prescription medications laced 

with fentanyl and fentanyl derivatives. For those who have been 

paying attention to this Committee’s work, fentanyl is an opioid 

pain medication which can be 100 times more powerful than morphine. 

To put that into perspective, Heroin is typically three times as 

powerful as morphine. Fentanyl is intended to be used to treat extreme pain associated with late stage cancer and other significant 

health problems. It is not intended to be used recreationally, yet 
4 

it is, and with the rise of synthetic opioids, it is increasingly being 

used unknowingly. 

Often drug traffickers will cut heroin with fentanyl to produce a 

more potent high. That has led to a rash of deaths across the country because of fentanyl’s potency. In recent legislation, this Committee included language to provide for a sentencing enhancement 

for any offender who traffics in heroin cut with fentanyl. 

With respect to synthetic opioids, fentanyl is also widely used. 

The profit margin is shocking. Less than a milligram of fentanyl 

can be lethal. That means a kilogram of fentanyl can generate 

enormous profits for the illicit trafficker, sometimes upward of a 

million dollars, so we have a problem. Between 2013 and 2014, the 

rate of drug overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids nearly doubled. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

a substantial portion of this increase appears to be related to the 

availability of illicit fentanyl. 

According to the DEA’s 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment, 

Mexico is the primary source country for illicitly produced fentanyl 

in the United States. However, pharmaceutical fentanyl has also 

been diverted from the legitimate supply chain and into the illicit 

market. Some derivatives and analogs of fentanyl are manufactured in China and shipped to the United States. Drug traffickers 

and associated profiteers are continuously developing new ways to 

exploit the American market. Evidence of new opioid drugs, some 

more powerful than fentanyl, are turning up on the American 

street corners. 

For example, W18, a synthetic opioid potentially 100 times more 

powerful than fentanyl, which law enforcement has called the next 

deadly synthetic street drug. We are under siege. It is time for 

Congress to act, and this hearing represents a good first step. I 

thank the witnesses for their testimony, and look forward to the responses to our questions. 

Mr. BUCK. I thank the Chair. Without objection, other Member’s 

opening statements can be made part of the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that very much. 

Mr. BUCK. We have a very distinguished panel today. I will begin 

by swearing in our witnesses before introducing them. If you would 

all please rise. Raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Thank you, you may be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses responded in the 

affirmative. Mr. Louis Milione, is that correct? 

Mr. MILIONE. Yes. 

Mr. BUCK. Special Agent Louis Milione is a deputy assistant administrator for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of Diversion Control, where he has served since October 2015. Mr. Milione acts as the principle advisor to the DEA administrator on matters pertaining to the regulation of programs relating to the diversion of legally produced controlled substances 

and listed chemicals. Mr. Milione began his career with the Drug 

Enforcement Administration in 1997, and holds a Bachelor of Arts 

degree from Villanova University, and a law degree from Rutgers 

University School of Law. 
5 

Officer William Smith, Jr., is an officer with the Washington, 

D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. He has over 20 years of law 

enforcement experience, much of which has focused on narcotics. 

Mr. Devin Eckhardt is the father of Connor Eckhardt, who died 

tragically after smoking synthetic marijuana. Mr. Eckhardt is the 

founder of the Connor Project, and has addressed the United Nations to raise awareness globally about the dangers of synthetic 

drug use. He joins us today along with his wife, Veronica, in continuation of that effort. 

Mr. David Nichols currently serves as an adjunct professor of 

chemical biology and medicinal chemistry at the University of 

North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has been recognized as a distinguished professor emeritus at Perdue University, and as an adjunct 

professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at Indiana University. 

Dr. Nichols holds a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from 

the University of Cincinnati, a PhD in medicinal chemistry from 

the University of Iowa, and was a post-doctoral fellow in pharmacology at the University of Iowa. 

We will now proceed. I will now recognize each of the witnesses 

for their opening statement, which will be limited to 5 minutes. Mr. 

Milione? 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. MILIONE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. MILIONE. Thank you, Congressman Buck, distinguished 

Members of the Committee. Synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic 

cathinones, deadly fentanyl analogs, and other toxic synthetic substances are flooding the United States, putting unsuspecting users 

at risk of death and permanent injury. DEA sees this drug threat 

as second only to the opioid scourge that is currently devastating 

our country. Synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones are unpredictable, untested substances placed in colorfully market packaging 

and then marketed to our country’s use as a legal high. 

Emergency room doctors report a wide range of life-threatening 

side effects, including brain damage, cardiac arrest, kidney failure, 

and extreme psychosis. Synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones are 

sold openly in gas stations, convenience stores, head shops, and 

over the Internet from domestic and foreign sources. 

Fentanyl analogs are a fast growing, particularly troubling part 

of this synthetic drug threat. Here you have the dangerous convergence of synthetic drugs with this country’s opioid epidemic. With 

Fentanyl analogs, you have substances many times more potent 

than heroin that are being sold as heroin, mixed with heroin, or 

pressed into pill form and sold as prescription drugs. Fentanyl 

analogs are so deadly that a miniscule amount can kill an 

unsuspecting user. They can be ordered from Asia over the Internet 

and delivered directly to your home. Because of the massive profit 

potential, Mexican cartels are aggressively purchasing fentanyl and 

fentanyl analogs from Asia, shipping it into Mexico, mixing it with 

other substances, and distributing it throughout the United States. 

For all of us in the DEA, for all of our great Federal, State, and 

local law enforcement partners, for all the dedicated prosecutors 
6 

around this country, our primary mission is to protect the public. 

In trying to protect the public from this synthetic drug threat, here 

is the most frustrating part. The foreign-based manufacturers and 

domestic pied pipers of this poison often operate with impunity because they exploit loopholes in the analog provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, and capitalize on the lengthy, resource intensive, reactive process required to schedule either permanently or 

temporarily these dangerous substances. 

As we speak, criminal chemists in foreign countries are tweaking 

the molecular structure of controlled synthetics, keeping the same 

pharmacologic properties as the controlled substance, but helping 

the manufacturers and distributors avoid criminal exposure because of the altered molecular structure. We see these newly created synthetic drugs by the dozens every year. It is important to 

remember that these new dangerous substance get piled on top of 

the hundreds that we have already determined need to be controlled based on overdoses, deaths, and law enforcement encounters. 

DEA moves to temporarily schedule as many of this growing 

backlog as quickly as we can, but for each substance that process 

averages between three and 4 months. Once temporarily scheduled, 

we seek HHS’ evaluation for permanent scheduling, a process that 

can take at least several years for each substance. 

Despite our best efforts, DEA cannot control these substances at 

a pace that will prevent additional overdoses and deaths. We at the 

DEA are very grateful for all the legislative and scheduling tools 

Congress has given us over the years. We have had success investigating, prosecuting, and convicting the traffickers of these dangerous substances using the Controlled Substances Act when the 

synthetic drugs are placed in Schedule I. We have also successfully 

used the Analog Act for substances not placed in Schedule I. However, today’s synthetic drug crisis has outgrown the Analog Act. 

Thirty years ago, when the act was passed by Congress, there were 

far fewer analog users, and fewer traffickers than exist today. The 

trafficking networks that existed in 1986 were significantly less sophisticated than the transnational criminal networks currently operating. 

We will continue to do everything we can, working with the tools 

you generously have given us to bring these substances under control and protect the public, but we are many steps behind the traffickers and need your help. In the short term, this esteemed body 

could provide DEA and our law enforcement partners throughout 

the country immediate relief by placing the hundreds of substances 

we have determined to be dangerous into Schedule I. 

This would allow us to keep these synthetic drugs out of the 

country, get them off the shelves of retail stores, and bring to justice not the user population, but the egregious domestic and foreign 

traffickers preying on our youth, exploiting human frailty for profit, 

and flooding our country with these dangerous drugs. In the long 

term, we would welcome amendments to the Controlled Substances 

Analog Act that would align the act with the current threat, and/ 

or perhaps other tools that would allow us to more quickly bring 

these drugs under control. 
7 

We stand ready to work with you, provide you any assistance we 

can, and address any of your concerns. One concern that has been 

raised is that placing hundreds of dangerous synthetic drugs into 

Schedule I will impede legitimate scientific research. Here are several facts that may inform that concern. DEA has never rejected 

a proposal for bona fide research with any Schedule I substance. 

Currently, there are 469 approved Schedule I researchers, and 

many have multiple approved protocols to study different Schedule 

I substances. 

During the last year, it has taken an average of 32 days for DEA 

to approve a researcher’s Schedule I application once that researcher has received FDA approval, a little more than 4 weeks. I 

would argue these are reasonable requirements when balanced 

with our duty to protect the public from these highly unstable and 

often deadly drugs. The DEA is committed to doing everything we 

can to address this threat. We look forward to working with Congress, with all our partners in the law enforcement, medical, and 

scientific communities to improve our effectiveness. Thank you very 

much for this opportunity, and I look forward to answering any 

questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Milione follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Special Agent Milione. 

Mr. MILIONE. Thank you. 

Mr. BUCK. Officer William Smith, I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Good morning Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members 

of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security Investigations. 

Mr. BUCK. Would you pull the microphone closer please? I am 

sorry to interrupt you. Would you pull the microphone a little closer to you? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SMITH, JR., 

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE 

Mr. SMITH. I apologize. As first responders who respond to the 

individuals under the influence of synthetic drugs, the side effects 

of synthetic drugs are very common and similar to another drug 

which law enforcement officers encounter, which is phencyclidine, 

or PCP. As the Committee can see, I am not a small officer, and 

have dealt with individuals both underneath these synthetic drugs 

and PCP. And let it be known, even at my stature at times, it has 

been very difficult for myself and other officers to restrain these individuals. 

Individuals under the influence of these substances have an absolute almost supernatural human strength and de-increased pain 

tolerance, which can lead to officers and other first responders 

being injured when dealing with these individuals. According to the 

Drug Enforcement Administration, poison control has seen a 229 

percent spike in calls in relationship to synthetic drugs. 

Hundreds of these synthetic drugs are manufactured overseas in 

China and Mexico with no regulations or medical purposes. There 

has been reported 49,000 new chemicals used in these synthetic 

drugs. This is costing children and teenagers their lives. Also, these 

synthetic drugs are designed to keep law enforcement from finding 

the origin of the chemicals. The DEA testified this past fall, in 

front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, that they are 

three steps behind the criminals when it comes to synthetics and 

analogs. In the past few years, synthetic marijuana has become the 

popular choice for synthetic drugs. It is designed to mimic the effects of organic marijuana, and has a wide commercial availability. 

It can be bought at local stores for as little as $5 apiece, which 

made it popular among young people and the homeless. 

This is because it is sold under interesting brand names, such as 

Bizarro, K2, Spice, and Scooby Snax. These synthetic drugs are 

usually manufactured in foreign facilities in China and Mexico, 

with an ever changing chemical cocktail. All 50 states have outlawed synthetic drugs in some way. The problem is that the ever 

changing chemical makeup. The manufacturers of these synthetic 

drugs keep changing the chemical makeup to try to skirt the law 

and claim that their product are not illegal. 

Synthetic marijuana has two to five times the strength, amount 

of THC than normal marijuana, and the availability and high use 

of drugs in recent years have led to a 1400 percent increase in hospital visits from 2009 to 2012. Commissioner William Bratton of 

the city of New York Police Department stated, ‘‘This is the scourge 
19 

on our society, affecting the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, our 

most challenged citizens. 

It affects teenagers of public housing, homeless city shelters, and 

is quite literally flooding our streets.’’ In the previous session of 

Congress, the FOP supported legislation to add synthetic bath 

salts, marijuana, and other synthetic drugs to DEA’s schedule of 

controlled substance, but the chemical manufacturers have found 

loopholes for manufacturing and distributing these drugs, or analog 

drugs, because they are similar, but not chemically identical to the 

scheduled substances. With the loopholes, these manufacturers and 

distributors sell; and abusers of these synthetic substance all know 

exactly what to do with them. They ingest them, snort them to get 

a dangerous and unpredictable high. 

In the past few years, we have found even more—seen more new 

drug of fentanyl. The synthetic fentanyl used by doctors is the most 

powerful opioids in medicine. However according to DEA, much of 

what is being found on the street is not diverted from hospitals, 

but rather sourced from China and Mexico. Frequently people buy 

it on the street with no idea it is fentanyl. 

It is reported to be 100 to 200 times stronger than heroin. Just 

a quarter of a gram or a milligram, .25 milligrams, can kill you. 

To put it in perspective, just how little .25 milligrams is, a typical 

baby aspirin is 81 milligrams. If you cut that 81 milligram tablet 

into 324 pieces, one of these pieces would be equivalent to a quarter milligram. Admitting [spelled phonetically] the 80 percent of all 

fentanyl seizures in 2014 were concentrated in just 10 states: Ohio, 

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Kentucky, 

Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, and Indiana. I would like to 

thank the Committee for hearing our national FOP representation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Officer Smith. I now recognize Mr. 

Eckhardt. If you could turn your microphone on for 5 minutes. 

Thank you very much. 

TESTIMONY OF DEVIN ECKHARDT, FOUNDER OF 

THE CONNOR PROJECT FOUNDATION 

Mr. ECKHARDT. Before I begin, I would like to make sure that 

each of the Committee Members has a copy of the brochure. Thank 

you. As it was stated, my name is Devin Eckhardt, and I am joined 

by my wife Veronica. And for very personal reasons, we chose to 

join you here today as you dedicate some time to better understanding the threats and issues surrounding new psychoactive substances, sometimes referred to as synthetic designer drugs, the epidemic rate at which they are spreading, the severity of their destructive effects both within the U.S. and globally, and the deadly 

impact they are having upon our countries, our communities and 

our families. 

And it is our sincere hope and prayer that each of you will leverage both your individual and collective power to do more than simply discuss this growing problem, but rather you will choose to take 

action now and make changes necessary to eradicate these deadly 

poisons and their proliferation. It is my hope that my testimony 

will help provide some heart to the head knowledge that you hear 

so frequently in these conversations. 

Sadly my wife, family, and I tragically know all too well the devastating impact of synthetic drugs. In July of 2014, our 19 year old 

son Connor was a bright, vibrant young man with a full life ahead 

of him. He was really what most would have considered the allAmerican young boy. He had a great job. He was preparing to go 

back to college. He loved music, surfing, the outdoors. He had lots 

of friends, and of course he was deeply loved by his family, his sisters, his mother, and of course me, his father. 

This first photo here was a family shot taken July 5th of 2014. 

It was the last time we would be together like this as a family. 

Eight days later, Connor was with a new friend. He made the 

seemingly innocent decision. He agreed to try something called 

Spice, a synthetic poison, and the result was the second photo 

there. After many days in the hospital with our son in a coma, he 

was ultimately declared brain dead. Connor died July 16th, 2014, 

after one smoke of a legal high purchased at a local store. 

At the time, we were unaware of NPSs, and we made the decision to share our story publically, to be painfully transparent and 

naked with our tragedy before a watching world, with the simple 

hopes that perhaps it might change one person’s life. It might 

spare them and their family the horrific circumstances that we 

were facing and that we now live with each day. 

Since the death of our son 671 days ago, we have met far too 

many parents who have also lost their children to synthetic drugs 

like Spice. And through our outreach, speaking, and education efforts over these past 671 days, we have communicated with literally hundreds of thousands of people throughout the United 

States and around the world who have lost loved ones or had their 

lives tragically destroyed by synthetic drugs. 
29 

Unfortunately, what happened to Connor is not unique. Far too 

many people have suffered irreparable harm, including death, as a 

result of trying or using these poisons. However, what is unique 

about his story is how it is received an overwhelming global response to what we have shared publically through social media, 

news interviews, TV, radio broadcasts around the world. His story 

has cut through the racial, socioeconomic, geographic, and religious 

barriers typically encountered. We know that NPSs are affecting 

everyone everywhere. We are not just one voice. Connor is not just 

one face or some statistic. We represent the voice and the face of 

the many others just like us. 

We have had the opportunity to reach millions of people on this 

subject. We have been interviewed by most of the major news and 

media outlets around the U.S. and globally, and of course we have 

leveraged social media. We have had individually unique Facebook 

posts that have reached millions at a time, with one reaching over 

37 million people globally. We have had the opportunity to speak 

in many settings. We have worked with and spoken to senators, 

legislators, law enforcement officials, and many in government. We 

even met with a lord from the House of Lords in the U.K. this past 

summer as we were there on this subject. 

We have worked with numerous organizations in an effort to 

educate and increase awareness on the dangers of synthetic drugs, 

and we have worked to change the laws so that these poisons are 

removed from our streets, our stores, and our communities, but 

more must be done. The problem is getting worse. Hundreds of new 

synthetic drug compounds have appeared around the world in the 

last few years, sometimes spreading at the rate of a new drug per 

week, and we are allowing these to come into our country. 

Illicit drug manufacturers are constantly working and changing 

the formulas, developing new chemical derivatives in order to 

evade the laws, and frankly they are working faster than we are. 

The issue of NPSs needs to be addressed and it needs to be done 

now. 

When this congressional gathering has ended, you return home. 

You will return to your families, your children, those you love and 

care for. When we return home, we return to a family that has 

been forever changed, because of the death of our beloved son as 

the result of synthetic drugs. As long as the people around the 

world pushing these poisons into our communities know that there 

are little or no consequence for their actions, and they do know 

this, we will continue to see the spread of synthetic drugs and the 

terrible harm they are bringing to our families, and to our youth 

and communities. You have the power to do something about this. 

You are in positions of influence and leadership, and we are 

pleading with you to please take action. Do not just talk about and 

debate the issues. Bring about change that will get these substances out of our communities, and deal appropriately with those 

behind the manufacturing and distribution of NPSs globally. Thank 

for your time and your consideration on this. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eckhardt follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Eckhardt, thank you for your courage, 

and I appreciate your wife being here also. Thank you. Dr. Nichols, 

I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID EARL NICHOLS, Ph.D., ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL 

Mr. NICHOLS. Congressman Buck, is my microphone on? Congressman Buck, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. During my career, I worked with synthetic drugs, possessing a researcher’s Schedule I DEA registration. 

My goal was to understand how the structure of a molecule engaged a biological target. Thus, better understanding how these 

substances act in the brain. I am very concerned about the potential harms to human health presented by synthetic drugs. Their 

availability requires a response, including regulation. 

Yet I do not believe that the proposed legislation would have prevented the recent emergence of Spice mixtures. Rather they focus 

on already known controlled substance types. We badly need reasonable approaches to controlling new chemo types of synthetic 

substances. The challenge is to preserve researcher’s needs while 

also stemming the flow of dangerous synthetic chemicals. 

An appropriate response should consider three points. First, allowing research of potential therapeutic uses. Second, legislation 

should be guided by rigorous science. And third, the impact on 

mass incarceration, especially in cases where substances have not 

been fully vetted by the scientific community. Few investigators 

will pursue research with Schedule I drugs. Various researching 

Schedule I substances discourage engagement. Obtaining a Schedule I license is not a trivial matter, and a researcher must be very 

motivated to obtain one, even if the investigator requires only 

small drug amounts that do not represent a potential for diversion. 

In most cases, researchers are funded, for example, by NIDA, to 

study only the deleterious properties of a specific drug of abuse. 

But it is also important to have funding available for research to 

identify beneficial properties of Schedule I substances, as with recent medical marijuana. 

The costs and regulatory burdens of a Schedule I license deter 

research that might lead to new medicines. Research on Schedule 

I drugs is important, because in the last decade, clinical studies 

have indicated that psilocybin, a Schedule I drug, may have unique 

therapeutic efficacy in treating anxiety, depression and addiction to 

alcohol and nicotine. 

As another example, Professor Charles Nichols at LSU decided 

to study the receptor targets of hallucinogens before he had a 

Schedule I license. The only hallucinogen available without a license was called DOI. He discovered, quite by accident, that DOI 

has potent anti-inflammatory properties, indicating potential efficacy in treating cardiovascular disease and asthma. Had DOI been 

a Schedule I, he never would have discovered this therapeutic 

breakthrough. Most pharmaceutical companies have a ban in research on novel drugs for depression, bipolar disorder, obsessive 

compulsive disorder, and others. They have unknown causes, the 
36 

research is extremely expensive with a low probability of success. 

Ironically, the kinds of substances we are concerned with here 

today act in the brain, and it is quite possible that new medicines 

will result from more research on them. Any responsible legislation 

should protect research that might lead to the discovery of new 

medicines. 

Without solid scientific evidence, it is unwise to schedule new 

molecules with untested potential. Sometimes changing a single 

atom on a molecule can dramatically alter its pharmacology. Superficial comparisons of chemical structure resemblance or predicted 

pharmacological effects, as in some proposed bills, are not a reliable basis for Schedule I classification. For example, bupropion or 

Wellbutrin, an effective anti-depressant, resembles Cathinone, yet 

it has no abuse potential. 

There are hundreds of thousands of synthetic compounds that 

could be made, and we still know very little about just a few of the 

most recent ones. Also, there is no schedule category for drugs that 

have no known medical value, but which have also not been shown 

to have high abuse potential. We should carefully research compounds flagged by law enforcement by scheduling only those who 

have demonstrated public health and safety risks. Input from the 

scientific medical community would preclude the scheduling of compounds with no demonstrated public health dangers, preventing 

needless prosecution and incarceration of individuals for using 

these substances. Persons who manufacture and distribute these 

substances that harm human health should be held accountable. 

But many people today do not believe that making users criminals for simple possession is appropriate. There is a consensus developing that use of psychoactive substances is a public health 

problem, not a criminal matter. The war on drugs has been largely 

unsuccessful in preventing drug use, and has contributed to our 

country having the largest prison population in the world, a large 

percentage of whom were incarcerated as a result of non-violent 

drug offenses. 

In summary, the proliferation of new synthetic substances represents a great threat to the health of our youth. And regulation 

must be a component to the solution of this problem. But I strongly 

believe drug control and scheduling decisions should be grounded 

in the best science. There must be balance between the needs of 

research and enforcement, so that potential new therapeutic discoveries are not lost by restricting access to novel compounds. Humans 

and adolescents in particular, are known to be curious and to experiment. But most pass through that phase without serious consequences. Draconian penalties and felony convictions for use only 

add to the problem. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nichols follows:] 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Dr. Nichols. We will now proceed under 

the 5 minute rule with questions for the witnesses. And I will recognize the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Gohmert from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank all the witness for 

being here. It is an important subject. And, Mr. Eckhardt, I know 

this is obviously very difficult for you. What a handsome young 

man you and your wife had, obviously brought a lot of joy. You 

mentioned that he bought it legally. You ever find out how he 

heard about this, and where he purchased it? 

Mr. ECKHARDT. Connor was with a new friend that day. He had 

actually been offered—think it is on. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. Think it is. 

Mr. ECKHARDT. Can you hear me okay? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. 

Mr. ECKHARDT. He had actually been offered marijuana. He declined; he did not want that, he did not want to be around that. 

And as an alternative, the synthetic drugs were suggested and they 

were purchased at a local smoke shop, along with, you know, other 

tobacco products. And I think truly was viewed as a safe alternative. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It was legal? 

Mr. ECKHARDT. Legal. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah, so it must be okay. 

Mr. ECKHARDT. And I think, you know, there is youth, find themselves often in situations of peer pressure, and he was declining 

one thing, and it was a way to concede. 

Mr. GOHMERT. He was acting admirably. Relying on his government that if it was too harmful, it would be illegal, obviously. And 

obviously, as you and your wife have been doing, you have been 

raising awareness. If he had been aware of the dangers, obviously 

he was sharp enough, and moral enough that he would have 

turned it down, and just did not know the risk. Mr. Milione, how 

big is the market for illicit prescription drugs compared to heroin? 

Mr. MILIONE. The market for prescription illicit or prescription 

opioids is massive. It would be hard to put a number on it. If you 

put it in overdose numbers, we are talking 18,000, 19,000 

overdoses in 1 year of prescription opioids. With heroin, you have 

almost 9,000. That is a trend, heroin is trending up. You have a 

massive prescription opioid problem. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So is the prescription opioid trending down, or 

just heroin trending up? 

Mr. MILIONE. We do not see a downward trend in prescription 

opioid abuse or overdoses. That is trending up, not at quite the rate 

that heroin is trending up. They are both trending up; heroin is 

intersecting unfortunately, on that graph. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Is it not interesting, as our Federal Government 

is forcing people to turn away from God, they are searching for answers in other places that are not so good for them? Do you know 

what the profit margin for a kilogram of a synthetic cannabinoid 

is? 

Mr. MILIONE. It is a massive profit margin. So for maybe $1,500, 

$1,000, up to $2,000, you could buy a kilogram of synthetic substances that is a synthetic cannabinoid, and 13 kilograms of, let’s 
53 

say marshmallow leaf. And you can turn that into about $250,000, 

that initial $1,000 to $1,500 into $250,000 of profit. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Dr. Nichols, you wrote an article in January of 

2011, where you expressed remorse because someone had used 

your published research to produce a substance that caused six 

deaths. How could they have used your article to produce that? I 

mean, did you go into that kind of detail? It is hard to believe they 

could have taken your article and—what is that? 

Mr. NICHOLS. The situation is, the chemists who were involved 

in making these substances are quite accomplished. I think many 

of them must have PhDs. So we publish in the open scientific literature, and I had been doing studies of ecstasy, its mechanism of 

action. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. 

Mr. NICHOLS. So one of the compounds we had made was called 

MTA. And in the assay that we used was a rad assay. It really 

identified compounds that caused the release of a brain transmitter 

called serotonin. And that does not represent the effects of ecstasy, 

but somebody, apparently in the Netherlands, saw that paper we 

published, and actually we had published that it was a potential 

anti-depressant, when we actually looked at it. They saw we had 

made it. 

The synthetic methods are in all the published literature. So they 

simply made a batch of it, and ironically put it into tablets called 

flatliners. This was really the first case where—and I was really 

shocked, because all medicinal chemists who work in this field publish their work in the open literature, and if you work with cocaine 

analogs, or hallucinogens, or DMA analogues, it is all out there. 

The methods are on the papers. It just takes someone to mine that 

literature to find the kind of compound they want to work with. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But you were not publishing the recipe or anything? 

Mr. NICHOLS. It is in the scientific publication. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But not in your article. That is what—— 

Mr. NICHOLS. No, not in the essay, no. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But I am just saying. I think you blame yourself 

too much for that. But I appreciate the time. Thank you, I yield 

back. 

Mr. BUCK. Chair recognizes the Ranking Member from Texas, 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This is 

a very important hearing. I want to thank each of the witnesses; 

Mr. Milione and Mr. Smith, Mr. Eckhardt, and certainly Dr. Nichols. Thank you so very much. I hope I pronounced Mr. Milione almost correctly. 

I was previously in a meeting, and I will have to go to another 

meeting dealing with criminal justice, but this is a very important 

hearing. Let me thank the Chairman as well, Mr. Buck. Let me 

also thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, 

and the Chairman of the full Committee, and Mr. Conyers, the 

Ranking Member of the full Committee. 

I am grateful for the work that we have done to organize this 

hearing, and bring the use and abuse of synthetic drugs to the attention to the Subcommittee on Crime. We have several witnesses 
54 

here today who will provide us with their own perspectives regarding the effects and dangers of synthetic drugs. My home State of 

Texas has been significantly affected by the proliferation of synthetic drugs. 

Kush is a street name for the popular illegal substance in Houston right now. And it has caused great harm. It is a designer drug 

made from combinations of synthetic chemical, sprayed on plant 

material, then packaged like candy, smoked like marijuana. It has 

no constraints, no regulations, no guidelines. Kush is typically 

many times more potent than natural marijuana, and produces 

physical and psychological effects that are uncharacteristic of natural marijuana use. People who have used Kush have suffered paralysis, brain damage, heart attacks, and even death. Kush is but 

one name, or supposed brand name for the synthetic marijuana. 

And law enforcement agencies, including those in Texas and 

across the Nation, have identified hundreds of names given to synthetic marijuana. This Committee hearing is important for that 

reason. We need to get the facts. Whatever we generate in legislation should be confined by the facts. 

We do not want to expand the fishnet, if you will, on individuals 

who happen to be either attracted, addicted, or using this drug. 

And I hope that we will have enough facts in our record to be able 

to craft a sufficient Federal response to this very important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent that the rest 

of my statement be included in the record. 

Mr. BUCK. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Conyers. 

I am grateful for the work you have done to organize this hearing and bring the 

use and abuse of synthetic drugs to the attention of the Subcommittee on Crime. 

We have several witnesses here today, who will provide us with their own unique 

perspectives regarding the effects and dangers of synthetic drugs. 

My home state of Texas has been significantly affected by the proliferation of synthetic drugs. 

‘‘Kush’’ is the street name for the most popular illegal substance in Houston right 

now. 

It is a designer drug made from combinations of synthetic chemicals sprayed on 

plant material, then packaged like candy, and smoked like marijuana. 

Kush is typically many times more potent than natural marijuana and produces 

physical and psychological effects that are uncharacteristic of natural marijuana 

use. 

People who have used Kush have suffered paralysis, brain damage, heart attacks 

and even death. 

Kush is but one name, or supposed brand name, for synthetic marijuana. 

Law enforcement agencies across the Nation have identified hundreds of names 

given to synthetic marijuana. 

Synthetic marijuana has become increasingly popular with teenagers as young as 

twelve and twenty-somethings. 

According to the DEA, it is the second-most abused substance by twelfth-graders, 

and overdoses of the drug are increasing in Texas. 

Synthetic marijuana has been linked to severe paranoia, psychotic episodes, violent delusions, kidney damage, suicidal thoughts, and self-mutilation. 

Two weeks ago, a man commandeered a D.C. transit bus, then, struck and killed 

a man. 

It was later determined that the individual who took over the bus smoked synthetic marijuana and PCP before the incident. 
55 

But, there are six other classes of synthetic drugs other than the class to which 

synthetic marijuana belongs. 

A study conducted by the University of Michigan in 2014 revealed that synthetic 

drugs were the second most used substances amongst students in grades eight 

through twelve. 

People are marketing synthetic drugs to our children with colorful packaging covered with cartoon characters. 

Without knowing what they are ingesting, kids believe these substances pose no 

danger to them physically or legally because they can easily walk into a gas station 

or convenience store and purchase them with no hassle involved. 

In reality, the dangers of using synthetic drugs are often greater than using the 

actual drug. 

The physical and psychological effects produced by synthetic drugs are wholly unpredictable. 

Those who overdose on these substances are also at greater risk of dying because 

doctors and first responders must first identify the source of the problem, preventing them from rendering the appropriate medical treatment in a timely manner, 

if, at all. 

We all share common goals—to protect our children and shield them from dangers 

they may not be able to understand or appreciate. 

We must consider all possible solutions, including treatment and prevention. 

As we did when the House acted last week to pass legislation addressing the 

opioid epidemic, we must adopt comprehensive approaches to issues of synthetic 

drug abuse. 

I hope the information we receive today will help us formulate appropriate and 

even-handed solutions that address more than just the criminal aspects of this problem. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I am also going to ask that my questions 

for the witnesses be submitted for answers to comment. I ask 

unanimous consent, and my questions submitted to the witnesses 

that I may present. 

Mr. BUCK. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I am going to propose a question to Dr. 

Nichols. I am concerned about making sure that we are not so 

broad that we in fact do not appropriately respond to synthetic 

drugs. And let me, by the way, in a moment of personal privilege, 

my daughter graduated with honors from the University of North 

Carolina, Chapel Hill, so you are elevated even higher in my eyesight. 

Why is it important, Dr. Nichols, that the scientific experts in 

the fields that study synthetic compounds play a role in determining the appropriate response in terms of drug scheduling and 

other controlled measures? And might I ask that you describe any 

promising research that you are aware of on these issues. 

Mr. NICHOLS. Well the legislation that I have seen in general basically tries to expand the landscape around known compounds, 

and I have done patent legislation, and I work with patents. And 

in patents, pharmaceutical companies will claim a genus of compounds. And in a recent case, there were 58 trillion compounds. So 

the possibility for harm is sort of unimaginable. 

So I think we really need expert medicinal chemists and neuropharmacologists to look at these compounds that have been proposed for scheduling to really determine. I know I have seen some 

of the proposed bills, and they basically try to think of everything 

possible. One of the comments I made was, we are talking about 

hallucinogens, cathinone-analogues, fentanyl-analogues, and synthetic cannabinoid compounds. But what if a new type of drug hits 
56 

the street? There is no legislation that would take care of a new 

chemo type. 

So then, all of a sudden, we have another cathinone. Some Chinese chemist plays around a lab, finds something we have never 

seen before, and now we have another scourge. So the laws that 

are proposed really are sort of hindsight laws, based on, if all you 

have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I think we need 

some out of the box thinking in terms of ways to approach this that 

would cut off the possibility for new chemo types of drugs that we 

have not seen it, and would be more careful in circumscribing the 

things that we have. 

Using expertise, there is lots of expertise in the American chemical society, in pharmacology societies, that could sit down and look 

at these and say, ‘‘These are problems, these need some evidence,’’ 

rather than just casting a wide net that is going to create all kinds 

of problems. Many of the compounds may not even be harmful to 

human health. 

So it is kind of an unfocused shotgun approach that I think could 

be much more focused on real problems with some expertise. And 

I just have not seen that brought to bear. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you. I know the other witnesses 

will have some instructive information that I will draw from your 

answers. Dr. Nichols, I think you have laid a landscape, or parameters, that we should seriously look at. We just had successful set 

of legislative initiatives on opioid, and I think it was based on a 

lot of thought, a lot of hearings, opioid and heroin. We passed a series of about 18 bills last week that all of us can find satisfaction 

in the way we approached it. 

The Judiciary Committee bill did not have any mandatory minimums at all. It was treatment, and recognition of the vast problem. 

I want to make sure that we are accurately and appropriately addressing this problem, and I will take to heart, if you will, take 

under advisement, your very astute analysis dealing with the vastness of compounds and subsets that we should address to make 

sure that we narrowly address these poisonous synthetic drugs, 

and not have a wide reach. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. With that 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I appreciate your time. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I want to particularly thank Mr. 

Eckhardt and Veronica for being here today, for your testimony. 

Like many of the folks in this room, I am a parent. I have a 16 

year old son, and a 14 and a 10 year old. And this issue causes me 

great agony. And for you, my heart goes out to you and your wife. 

I pray for you and your family for what you have been through. 

I thank you for your courage to be here. It is incredible what you 

are doing, and thank you for raising awareness. And I intend to 

take your message back to my district, and certainly to my family. 

But I wondered if you might be able to share with us what you believe, in your experience so far, is the most effective method of raising awareness, and what is the most efficient method in curtailing 

the use of synthetic drugs? 
57 

Ms. ECKHARDT. May I speak? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, please. 

Ms. ECKHARDT. Thank you so much for having us here. Obviously, it is very difficult for Devin and I. Not only did we travel 

overnight from California, but we are so passionate about this subject. And laws take time to change. They obviously need to change 

now. But getting that public service announcement, which is now 

happening with the opiate and heroin epidemic, getting public service announcements out there, recognizing that these products are 

available in candy form, in liquid form, in the vapes, in the e-cigarettes, in the marijuana type leaf, getting that message out there 

to parents. They simply do not know. 

I said I wish I could carry—I have a book this big—that is full 

of stories, full of stories from people who have lost their children, 

either to death or to mental illness from using. People simply do 

not know. It needs to be taught in the classrooms. Teachers need 

to know. Physicians need to know. Nurses need to know. Counselors need to know. The public needs to know at large. And this 

is something that can be done immediately. Awareness, education, 

prevention. 

And I would like to also mention that if you are 13, 14, 15, 17 

years old, under 18 years old, and you become addicted to Spice, 

and it is very addictive, where do they go? There is not a place for 

an addicted child to get treatment, and this is a very serious issue 

needed to be discussed at another time. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Veronica, I appreciate your 

being here, and appreciate your testimony. Agent Milione and Officer Smith, I wondered if you might be able to address this issue. 

I, as a former prosecutor, have had an interaction with law enforcement over the years. K2 was an issue not too long ago. Hit the 

stores, it was in the local gas stations, at the party stores. I got 

a call from one of my local police chiefs, Chief Narsh from Lake 

Orion Police Department, who told me that he was trying to get it 

off the shelves but he could not do it because there was no legal 

authority to do that. 

How do we get ahead of this? What do we do to give you the tools 

in law enforcement to prepare for the next generation? And clearly, 

these folks that are selling them in the stores are selling them with 

knowledge that they are being used in an illicit way. They are not 

just bath salts or incense. It is being used by our youth in a way 

that is intended for some sort of high. How do we get ahead of this, 

and what can we do as Congress to help and give you the tools you 

need? 

Mr. MILIONE. Thank you very much for the question. As I mentioned before, we have already identified hundreds, not based on 

theory, but based on overdoses, deaths, law enforcement encounters, we are getting multiple every month. So now we are talking 

dozens every year. So, the most effective way to give immediate relief to our State and local partners and our Federal partners is get 

them into Schedule I. That would solve a couple of problems. It 

would give us the ability to get them out of those stores, to be able 

to stop it at the border. 

But more importantly, we would be able to increase the cost of 

those that are trafficking it—not using it, trafficking in it—in the 
58 

United States, but then overseas, because they operate with impunity. That would be one fix. 

Another possible solution would have to do with that labeling. In 

the same way that with anabolic steroids, there is a bill that you 

have to have appropriate labeling. If there is false labeling, there 

may be some kind of a false labeling penalty that would increase 

the civil penalty, and tamp down the incentive for these retail 

stores, convenience stores to have this in their places of business. 

So those are a couple of ideas, but we would be more than happy 

to work on any, providing any technical assistance in that area. 

Mr. SMITH. Representative, as Veronica spoke to it, PSA and getting the word out on the street. And I believe Mr. Buck or Mr. 

Eckhardt spoke to the fact of these kids are buying this legally in 

stores. And again, thinking it is a legal substance, they are not 

doing any of the hardcore street drugs that we used to see them 

do: cocaine, heroin, marijuana. They are not taking this out of de 

facto ramifications that come from using something that they buy 

at their convenience store for $5. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you both very much. I wish we had more 

time on this. I mean, anything I can personally do and I know others are the same way. Anyway I can help, I would love to be part 

of that solution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, and the Chair recognizes Ms. Chu from 

California for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Yes. Mr. Milione, the Controlled Substances Act provides for two mechanisms for controlling drugs and other substances. Congress can do it legislatively, or the DEA, in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services, can do 

it administratively. When the DEA takes an action to temporarily 

schedule a substance, retailers begin selling new versions of their 

products with new unregulated compounds in them. In your opinion, how effective is the current legislative framework? 

Mr. MILIONE. Certainly we appreciate all the tools that Congress 

has given us. The challenge in this space is that it is a reactive 

process, and it is a lengthy process, resource-intensive process. And 

the same medicinal chemists, pharmacologists that do this analysis 

for DEA and work with our partners at HHS also travel the country. I think it is 65 different Federal prosecutions under the Analogue Act, as experts. 

So it is a very reactive process. Scheduling temporarily takes, on 

average, three to 4 months, after harm has already occurred. Once 

we initiate that process, it is generally two to 3 years by the time 

HHS can do their analysis. So when you pile on top the dozens that 

we are getting every year, on top of the hundreds that we have already identified, it is like pushing that proverbial massive rock up 

a hill. 

Ms. CHU. And what should Congress do to expedite the classification and scheduling of these synthetic drug analogues? 

Mr. MILIONE. I would be willing to work with your staff to talk 

specifics, provide some technical advice, anything that would either 

streamline that process, or give us some breathing room and get 

the ones that we have already identified onto Schedule I. 

Ms. CHU. Yes, I would love work with you on that. 

Mr. MILIONE. Yes, absolutely. 
59 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Milione, in order to skirt Federal and State laws, 

many of these synthetic drugs are being labeled as not intended for 

human consumption, or legal in certain states. How are these 

claims affecting law enforcement’s ability to prosecute synthetic 

drug-related crimes, and what could be done about this? 

Mr. MILIONE. Well that is the evil brilliance of some of the traffickers. They are going to look at the law, the Analogue Act, and 

they are going to create something and put that on the substance 

so that creates a defense for them. So now you have a battle for 

the experts when you prosecute them under the Analogue Act. 

So, one way that you could potentially fix that, that I mentioned 

a moment ago, is if you had some kind of a labeling requirement 

so that they are appropriately labeled. That would defeat that defense, but that is kind of in the realm of the technical assistance 

and advice or interaction that we could have to maybe talk about 

those in greater detail. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Milione, a majority of these synthetic drugs have 

been manufactured and imported from China. What has the DEA 

been doing to combat the manufacturing of these chemical compounds? 

Mr. MILIONE. That is one of the biggest challenges, right? The 

manufacturers operate with impunity because the majority of these 

substances are not in Schedule I. Fortunately, we have a very 

strong and growing relationship with the Republic of China. 

In October of 2015, they scheduled 116 of these new psychoactive 

substances, these synthetics, and as a result of our cooperation 

with them, they provided leads with us to identify domestically 

where gatekeepers and—not cartel heads, but cartel distributors— 

would be in the United States, so that we could work under our 

laws here in the United States to bring them to justice. 

Ms. CHU. And how are these precursor chemicals being imported 

into the United States? 

Mr. MILIONE. They are being labeled as research chemicals. They 

are being, like any other contraband, mislabeled and then sent in. 

And unfortunately, the majority of them, we do not have the authority to stop them. We cannot help our partners at the CBP, Customs and Border Patrol, because the majority of them are not 

scheduled. 

Ms. CHU. And, Officer Smith, in the past several years, there has 

been an enormous increase in the variety and number of synthetic 

drugs available. The effects of the drugs can vary so greatly. As a 

first responder, what additional safety and health precautions do 

police officers have to take when approaching an individual suspected to be under the influence of synthetic drugs? 

Mr. SMITH. Ma’am, from the law enforcement first responder 

stand point in general would be, law enforcement, fire, EMS, dealing with individuals on synthetic drugs, and I spoke to it earlier, 

it is similar to the effects of PCP on an individual. You know, they 

are very unpredictable to deal with. They can be very passive at 

one moment, and with the flick of a light switch per se, they are 

extremely agitated, they are very violent, and we are getting officers and firefighters and EMS responders hurt from the synthetic 

drugs. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 
60 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you. And the Chair recognizes Mr. Labrador 

from Idaho for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back 

1 or 2 minutes to Mr. Bishop who has a few more questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Congressman Labrador. We have got a 

thousand questions here and a very small amount of time, but I 

wondered if I might ask Mr. Milione—the DEA’s Project Synergy 

found that millions of dollars in the sales of these synthetics were 

being funneled back to the Middle East, for what I assume to be 

terrorism purposes, or funding terrorism. Can you comment on 

that, and share more about that? 

Mr. MILIONE. Sure. Project Synergy, it was a multi-year, multiagency investigation, and you are right, about millions and millions, hundreds of millions in proceeds were going back to the Middle East; Yemen, Syria, Lebanon. We continue to explore that, we 

work with our partners at the FBI, and our Special Operations Division, which is a multi-agency coordination center. 

But that operation resulted in the seizure of almost 7,000 kilograms of cathinones, cannabinoids, and a number of successful— 

hundreds of prosecutions. But we are still exploring that, and I 

would not be able to speak to some of the threads of those investigations on the money. 

Mr. BISHOP. One follow-up, a quick follow-up—we know that this 

is not necessarily manufactured here, that in many cases, it comes 

from China, overseas somewhere. How is the trafficking handled 

when it gets to the Untired States? Who does it? Cartels or—— 

Mr. MILIONE. Well, on both the synthetic cannabinoid, cathinone 

side, but on the fentanyl analogues, which are the deadly, much 

more potent than heroin synthetic, there is several ways, but the 

primary way is, manufactured in China, sent into Mexico. Mexican 

cartels now are exploiting and capitalizing on the opioid epidemic 

in the country, obviously with their heroin trafficking, and they are 

taking the synthetic fentanyl, mixing it with heroin and other substances, and sending it across the border. Southwest border, couriers taking it into Lawrence, Massachusetts. Really, any part of the 

country is being touched. 

But you can also get it directly from China. You can order it over 

the Internet. You can get this substance sent to you, delivered directly to your home. You can mix it with other compounds and then 

distribute it in the United States. It is a terrible treacherous world 

that they are creating. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much for your testimony. I yield 

back to Congressmen Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And thank you all for 

being here today. I applaud the Chairman for calling this hearing 

and taking steps to fight this epidemic. 

Mr. Eckhardt, I want to express to you—I have five children, and 

I cannot even imagine what you are going through, and I want to 

express my deepest condolences to you, to your wife, and to your 

entire family for your tragic loss. I am sure it is difficult to be here 

and testify, but I greatly admire the courage that you have to testify here and to help us to more fully understand the true impact 

of these drugs, you know, on our society. 
61 

Mr. Milione, I want to follow up on some of the questions that 

were being asked. To your knowledge, is DEA working with Customs and Border Protection to interdict these shipments? 

Mr. MILIONE. We are working with them as closely as we can 

and with the tools that we have, absolutely. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you have cooperative agreements in place? 

Mr. MILIONE. I do not know as far as the agreements, but I am 

sure there are MOU’s that exist. But there is a healthy working 

relationship with CBP. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yeah. And you think that working relationship is 

functioning? 

Mr. MILIONE. I believe so, in this context, yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Can you estimate the number of prosecutions of 

synthetic drug manufacturers and distributors that have occurred 

in the United States? 

Mr. MILIONE. I am sorry, I missed that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Can you estimate the number of prosecutions of 

synthetic drug manufacturers and distributors that have occurred 

in the United States? 

Mr. MILIONE. It would be very hard for me to come up with a 

hard number. I would be happy to take that back and get that to 

you. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Mr. Smith, how has your department had 

to shift its drug enforcement policies in order to combat the influx 

of synthetic drugs? 

Mr. SMITH. The combating of the synthetic drugs is typical enforcement of any other law. The fact that we are running in a problem the same as Mr. Malone, and as Dr. Nichols testified to, is the 

ever-changing chemical make-up of these synthetic drugs for prosecution. Was made by the DEA and Dr. Nichols, just them tweaking one chemical atom of that synthetic drug changes the enforcement aspect on law enforcement’s side, due to the fact of now, you 

have a chemical drug that was actually scheduled, now they 

change an atom, it is no longer that chemical, it is a new chemical, 

so therefore it cannot be prosecuted. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Eckhardt, is there anything that you have not been able to tell us, that we have not 

asked you, that you would like to say? 

Mr. ECKHARDT. How much time do you have? Yeah, I think one 

of the things that occurs to me as this conversation goes on is, I 

would say at what price tag? At what price tag are changes being 

made, or being delayed? From a parent’s perspective, from the general public’s perspective, we would feel like, and the many, many 

hundreds of thousands of people that we have communicated with 

would feel like if something looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, 

it quacks like a duck, let’s call it a duck. 

We are down at the molecular atom structure, and because they 

change one molecule, it skirts our laws, and it is available. How 

many young people have to lose their lives to death or permanent 

disability? What is the impact on our community and our society 

as a result of that? And at what price tag are we preserving the 

ability to research these, or to talk about them or to study trends 

and statistics before we actually do something? Let’s do something. 
62 

If it is not the right thing, we can always change it down the road 

as we learn more. 

But I think parents and the general public out there need to be 

informed about this. We had no idea. We were not parents with our 

heads in the sand. We talked to our children about drugs and the 

perils of what they face as youth growing up in today’s world. We 

did not have a clue about what is going on, and the more we learn, 

the more terrifying it gets to be a parent in today’s world. We need 

help from our government. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BUCK. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the 

Chair of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte from Virginia. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well thank you Mr. Chairman, and I apologize 

for not being able to be with you for the entire hearing. I did appreciate in particular your testimony, Mr. Eckhardt, and this brochure. 

I have, in my experience here in the Congress, seen a few other 

people who basically dedicated their lives to trying to make their 

son or daughter’s life meaningful, and I know that is exactly what 

you are trying to do in dealing with a horrific loss like you are. So, 

I very much commend you for that. 

I do not know how much your foundation’s research has given 

you about this, but—and it may have been asked already—but 

some of these products like K2 and Spice and Chronic that I see 

on the bottom of the brochure here—they look like, you know, regular commercial products, and that increases, I am sure, the opinion that people think that ‘‘Hey this must be legitimate. It is for 

sale here in this store.’’ 

What do you know about those companies? Are they legitimate 

companies that make other products, or are they just totally illegal 

operations that have this stuff mysteriously appear in various 

stores for people to buy? 

Mr. ECKHARDT. Yeah, to the best of our understanding, there is 

no legitimate use for the chemicals, and the businesses that are 

proliferating these products out there in marketplace are not selling legitimate. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If you were to sue them, they would just disappear in thin air? They are not—— 

Mr. ECKHARDT. In the case with our son, we tried to discover 

who was the manufacturer, and were unable to get that, even 

though we had the packet itself. So there is a deep web, and it is 

not easy to go and identify. These are not products that are typically being made in some manufacturing plant with the name of 

the company out front. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you think they are made in the U.S. or made 

outside and shipped in? 

Mr. ECKHARDT. Our understanding is both, both. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And how much cooperation did you get from law 

enforcement, from the DEA and others, in trying to do that research up that chain to find out who made it and where they made 

it? 

Mr. ECKHARDT. From our perspective, the law enforcement and 

the people around us were very supportive. 
63 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But they were not able to help you go up the 

chain and find out who actually made that product that was in that 

bag? 

Mr. ECKHARDT. Right. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Milione, you testified about how potent 

Fentanyl is even if it is just absorbed through the skin. What harm 

could this substance do if dispersed over a crowd of people? 

Mr. MILIONE. It could kill them. I mean it would depress their— 

I am not a scientist, obviously, but we fortunately have much 

smarter people than myself on our staff that are scientists. And it 

will depress your respiration and it could cause death. So as was 

talked about, a very miniscule amount can cause death. 

So one of the challenges obviously for the unsuspecting user is 

that they could be taking Fentanyl and not realize that it is 

Fentanyl and overdose. But then for my brothers and sisters in law 

enforcement, the first responders, and within the DEA, when we go 

in on warrants, it is a very, very difficult situation. Every time you 

encounter heroin now, you have to assume it is Fentanyl, because 

if you inhale it, it becomes airborne, you get it on your skin, you 

could have that kind of a reaction. So that is something that law 

enforcement all over the country is—and EMS, firefighters, everyone is concerned with that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And that is added? Heroin is cut with that, and 

some other things are cut with that in order to increase the addictive nature of it? Is that—— 

Mr. MILIONE. Increase its potency, so it can be added—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. That develops a reputation, people go back to it 

because ‘‘Hey, that was really’’—— 

Mr. MILIONE. Well that is kind of the tragic part of it, right? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Yeah. 

Mr. MILIONE. Word gets out that there is a very strong—and 

traffickers will do that. They will spike something very hot, so that 

when it goes out, unfortunately you will have overdose deaths. 

Word will travel, and that particular X product is very, very potent, 

so there will be a desire for that product. So it is mixed with heroin, it is mixed with other substances. It really can be mixed with 

anything, just to kind of expand its commercial viability. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Adding that to some other product, as dangerous as the other product might be, like heroin—adding that to 

it is almost tantamount to knowing you are going to be committing 

a certain number of murders as that is distributed amongst the 

populous. 

Mr. MILIONE. That is—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Unavoidable that a significant quantity of this 

in the hands of the population is going to result in a certain number of deaths. 

Mr. MILIONE. That is correct, and we have had success. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You have got to know that going in, right? 

Mr. MILIONE. Yes, and we have had success with death investigations post-overdose. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. How difficult is it to prosecute the manufacturers of these synthetic drugs? 

Mr. MILIONE. When you were speaking earlier—here is the biggest challenge. The biggest challenge is it is reactive. Our success 
64 

with any of the biggest cartels, the most violent insulated groups, 

has been with a proactive infiltration. To get them indicted, get 

them convicted, arrest them in the United States, or bring them— 

extradite them from another country. 

The problem is in a reactive case, the harm has already occurred, 

so now you are trying to rebuild that. It is challenging, especially 

when the substances aren’t necessarily Schedule I substances. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BUCK. This concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all of our 

distinguished witnesses for attending. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. The 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned subject 

to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ