[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-165 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
MIMI WALTERS, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
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 SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
KEN BUCK, Colorado
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel
Joe Graupensperger, Minority Counsel
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
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.
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
imitate. 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 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.
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 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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
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 all-American 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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
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 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 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.
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
neuro-pharmacologists 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 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?
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 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.
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.
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,
multi-agency 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.
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. 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.
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 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.]
[all]