Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right, we're going to begin shortly. We're just waiting for the absent Members. We're waiting for Ms. Bonta and Mr. Santiago and Ms. Ortega to come back.

Welcome to the Assembly Public Safety Committee meeting.

All witnesses, all witness testimony will be in person. There will be no phone testimony option for this hearing. You can find more information on www. Assembly CA gov backslash committees. See, I believe we're waiting for Mr. Santiago and one other Member, but we can call the role establish quorum.

Jones-Sawyer. Here. Alanis here Bonta Brian Lackey here. Ortega Santiago Zbur. So we have a reconsideration item. As it was announced previously during floor session, we have been granted permission to hear AB 701 Viapudua. I have decided to take this Bill up first. This measure is vote only. There will be no author presentation or witness testimony. Is there a motion?

Call the roll on AB 701 by semen Member via Putua. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. John Sawyer?

Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis Aye. Alanis, aye. Bonta Brian, not voting. Brian not voting. Lackey, aye. Lackey I Ortega Aye. Ortega, aye. Santiago. Zbur. Aye. Zbur, aye.

That measure passes. We'll now do as a special consideration to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Patterson, if you don't mind, we're going to take Mr. Maienschein first. AB 1058, item number six. No, you're on a tight timeline, too. I've got a witness that has to.

I think we can get through this fairly quick. I hope. I'm sorry. AB 367 item number two. You may begin.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members, the fentanyl crisis is rapidly sweeping California. The Centers for Disease Control has named fentanyl the deadliest drug in the United States. Fentanyl isn't just any drug. It's an extremely powerful opioid that is estimated to be 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine. Sadly, the effects of fentanyl overdoses have been especially devastating for the state's young people.

One in five deaths among 15 to 24 year olds in California as a result of a fentanyl overdose. While our efforts could never repair the loss of life, AB 367 recognizes that injury to human life or death deserves the consideration at the minimum of a three year sentence enhancement. Previously in California, a person who sold, furnished, administered, or gave away a prohibited narcotic that resulted in death or serious injury could be charged with a great bodily injury enhancement.

The state of gave the court the option to impose a three or five year enhancement to the sentence. However, in a 2021 ruling, the California Supreme Court limited the applicability of this enhancement. By this standard, most drug dealers could escape punishment when the drugs they sell cause serious injury or death. After talking with many people, I've learned that without the option to charge this enhancement, they are having to account for this loss of life by filing more serious murder charges.

AB 367 will help California take a multifaceted approach to the fentanyl epidemic by allowing prosecutors to add this enhancement to sentences for selling, furnishing, giving away, or administering fentanyl that has resulted in serious injury or death. This is not an automatic enhancement. Prosecutors will be able to choose, based on the fact of the facts of the case, whether to charge an enhancement. The circumstances of the enhancement must then be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do not want to revert back to the harsh policies of the war on drugs. With this in mind, I have limited the Bill in the following ways. The enhancement only applies to fentanyl and its analogs. Two, the enhancement cannot be applied to juvenile offenders. And three, similar to a sentence enhancement Bill passed by this Committee a few weeks ago, this Bill contains a five year sunset.

This will allow the Legislature to review the impacts on this policy and make a decision on whether it should continue should this Bill move forward. Today, I commit to further conversations with the chair, committee members, and stakeholders to refine the Bill and limit any potential unintended consequences. Members, our local governments are struggling and they are asking for our help. Families who have lost loved ones are asking for our help. Families who are terrified of losing their loved ones are asking for our help.

It's critical that we take action at all levels of government to protect our communities from this deadly substance. AB 367 will hold dealers accountable for the destruction fentanyl causes to so many families across California. With me to testify in support is Adrian Granda, the Director of government affairs for the City of San Diego. On behalf of the bill's sponsor, Mayor Todd Gloria.

Welcome, sir. You may begin. Five minutes.

Thank you. Assemblymember Maienschein and honorable Members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Adrian Grande. I'm the Director of government affairs for the City of San Diego, serving under the office of Mayor Todd Gloria, the sponsor of this Bill. I respectfully ask for your passage of AB 367 today. A common sense Bill to help impose higher penalties on sales of fentanyl results in someone's death. Roughly 6000 Californians die each year due to fentanyl.

In San Diego, county, fentanyl overdose deaths have grown exponentially from fewer than 50 in 2017 to over 800 in 2021, fentanyl is also the number one killer of unsheltered individuals in the City of San Diego. We thank assemblymember Maienschein for authoring this important measure. AB 367 will deter the sales and trafficking of fentanyl and save lives being lost to these drugs that can cause great bodily injury or death. This Bill does not add a new enhancement into law, but rather clarifies when the provision can apply.

In 2021. The Supreme Court ruling set a standard that a dealer must physically place the drug in someone's mouth in order to use this enhancement. This ignores the fact that many of the people dying from fake pills have no idea they're taking fentanyl at all. As we've heard from, or we'll likely hear from many mourning families today and have heard through hearing of similar bills.

AB 367 would provide clarity for prosecutors so that the crime of causing someone's death could be captured through additional penalties, and the consequences would not be the exact same as those for a simple sales crime. We know that tackling the fentanyl crisis will take many different policies, like making naloxone as more readily available, educating the public that one pill can kill. But kids dying alone in their rooms have no one to administer Narcan to them, nor do they have the opportunity to seek treatment.

Public safety measures are needed, too. This drug is ravaging our cities, which is why league of cities and larger cities as diverse as San Diego, Riverside, San Jose, Irvine, Bakersfield and Fresno are all in support. I respectfully ask for your. I vote on AB 367 for the victims, for the families, and for our communities. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there any other witnesses in support?

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Kim Stone, Stone advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman and Members Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United, in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Pat Espinos, on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's office, strong support.

Thank you, sir. Good morning. Morgan Gayer, Placer county District Attorney, in support. Thank you, sir.

Good morning. I'm the father of Talia Newman, a victim from fentanyl, and I do support. Thank you, sir.

Thank you for coming.

My name is Sandra Newman and I do support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Angela Webb, CEO of Arrival Live California, and I support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Laura Fragoso from arrivalive California and I strongly support.

Thank you.

Laura Didier, mother of Zach Didier, forever 17, killed by a counterfeit pill in 2020. In strong support.

Thank you, ma'am.

Tim Ho, Sacramento District Attorney, in strong support as well.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Natalie Page, teacher, parent and my brother passed. I'm a victim. I support.

Thank you.

Kelly Amru of Willows, California, closer to.

The mic so we can hear you.

Hi. Sorry about that. Kelly Amru from Willows, California. I hope you guys support it. I lost my son three months ago to fentanyl. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Tony Arnes, pastor in Folsom. My 19 year old died September 302021. To fentanyl.

Thank you.

Tony Arns, El Dorado Hills. Our son attended Folsom High School. He was a football player at 19. I'm in full support. Thank you. One pill, one pill.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members, Elisa Arcidiocono with the League of California Cities, in strong support. Thank you.

Hi.

Stephanie Herrera with the ENR project and BTS Commission, in strong support.

Mr.

Chair and Members, Matthew Cyberling, on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association, both in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Committee Members, Stephanie Estrad, on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney, in support.

Thank you.

Ethan Nagelr, on behalf of the cities of Bakersfield and Carlsbad, in support.

Good morning. Jim Vonderworth, Folsom, California. I'm a concerned citizen, what's going on in our state, and I am in favor of a yes vote for this Bill.

Thank you, sir.

My name is J. C. Carpenter, and I am a recovered addict and know many people who have died from this drug and strongly urge you to support these bills.

Thank you, ma'am.

My name is Lee Sargent. I lost a brother to fentanyl over house. I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Chair, Chairman Jones-Sawyer and Assembly Members here. My name is Carl Tannenbaum.

You can sit at the table. I know it's your first time. Oh okay. Well, you still only get two minutes apiece or five minutes altogether.

Now you can deduct that from my two minutes. My name is Carl Tannenbaum, and I'm a retired San Francisco police sergeant. I am here today to respectfully voice my opinion in opposition.

Little closer to the mic.

In opposition of Senate Bill 367. Assembly Bill 367. I'm sorry.

I'm a second generation californian and I spent 32 years in the San Francisco Police Department. In 1987, I was assigned to the Narcotics Bureau of the Police Department in direct response to the crack epidemic that was sweeping this country. At that time, they increased the size of the narcotics unit to 120 officers. Since then, we have done nothing but throw money and resources at the failed war on drugs.

In spite of what's been said earlier today, this enhancement does nothing to improve the quality of life or increase public safety for the people of this state. It locks up and victimizes innocent people who are not the drug kingpins that this is targeted for. I respectfully ask you to vote this Bill down. It does nothing to enhance public safety at all. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Good morning, chair, Members of this Committee. Thank you. My name is Sam Lewis, and I'm the Executive Director of ARC, the Anti Recidivism Coalition, a criminal justice nonprofit organization that has supported thousands of Californians that have overcome trauma, addiction, and many barriers faced by people who have been impacted by our legal justice system. With the right kind of support, I have seen ARC Members build lives and love and contribute to their families and communities. By doing so, they also reduce recidivism and enhance public safety.

30 years ago, 30 years ago, we were faced with crack epidemic. I was a teenager. The solution this body arrived at then was to increase sentencing. As someone who was incarcerated for a total of 24 years in the Department of Corrections, in the wake of this decision, I have supported people and watched them as they come home from incarceration. My position at ARC has allowed me to be able to see firsthand what research has demonstrated time and time again.

Increased sentencing does not curb drug use and overdose. It just doesn't. Here's what enhanced sentencing does. It destabilizes family, and the entire generation was stripped from our communities 30 years ago. It limits the potential for someone who wants to seek help, the cost that the state could be spending on treatment. We will be building prisons. Preventative support services would be eliminated because we will be spending money to lock up people who actually need treatment and help.

Disproportionately Black and Latino communities would be sent to these places. That's a simple fact. We did this before. That playbook doesn't work. It's important to note that AB 367 primarily focuses on people who share drugs, not deal drugs. Let's go after the kingpins, the people that actually make this stuff. Why are we going after mid-level, as some people would describe, mid-level dealers, kids.

And when I say kids, I understand it may not affect juveniles but 19, 20, 21 year old that are sharing drugs, which is dumb. That's not something we should be putting people in prison for. They need treatment. I respectfully urge the Members of this Committee to vote No on AB 367. Let's not go backwards. Let's treat our communities with the compassion and treatment that they need, not lock them up and throw away the key. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses? In opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate justice.

Good morning. Margot George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Brendan Woods, public defender of Alameda County, also California Public Defender Association Board Member, in opposition.

Esteban Nunez, with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, Social Change and Insight Garden Program, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Alicia Benavides Lewis, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, in strong opposition.

Carmen Nicole Cox, ACLU Cal Action in strong opposition because this Bill focuses as much if not more.

Thank you.

On people who didn't even know. People who share drugs. Thank you.

David Goodman-Meza, physician researcher, in opposition.

Wesley Saver, Health Right 360, in strong opposition.

Anne Irwin, Smart Justice California, in strong opposition.

Andrew Winn, Executive Director, Insight Garden Program. Strong opposition.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Amy Dunkel, Broken No More, in strong opposition.

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

Robert Cummings. I oppose AB 367.

Ruby Cummings, I oppose AB 367.

Sean Gage, Anti Recidivism Coalition. I oppose.

Wajuba Mcduffie, ARC. I oppose this Bill.

Candace Lewis, Anti Recidivism Coalition. I oppose AB. I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Gary Burt with the Anti Recidivism Coalition and I oppose AB 367.

My name is Johnny Chadavong. I represent ARC and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Jamie Carper. I'm with ARC and I oppose the Bill.

Emily Wonder, on behalf of the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition and Young Women's Freedom Center, in opposition to 367.

Hi, my name is Leon Burns. I'm with our ARC and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Good evening. My name is Junior Vargas. I'm with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, and I oppose this Bill.

Phil Melendez with Smart Justice California, in opposition.

Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. My name is Katrina Perry. I'm with It's Not Okay Moms for Change and I oppose this Bill. We don't need more enhancements. We need more programs.

Good evening. My name is Willie Woods. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you very much.

Good morning. John Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Justice, strongly oppose. Thank you.

Morning Chair and Members. Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Also here on behalf of All of Us or None. In strong opposition. Thank you.

Henry Ortiz, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None. Strong opposition.

Good morning. My name is Chauncey Cox. I'm with ARC and I strongly oppose this. Thank you.

Good morning. Tanisha Cannon, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None. I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Shone Robinson and I work with Anti Recidivism Coalition and I strongly oppose.

My name is Lawrence Cox, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None, and strongly opposed.

Hello. My name is Scarlett Fademus. I bring my parents into this space since they cannot be here. Soy Dalia Parision and my Alex Fademuos. I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Tommy Deluno. I'm with the Anti Recidivism Coalition and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Morning, everybody. My name is Jules Vidano, member of ARC. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi. My name is Samuel King. I'm with ARC and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Mbulu Thomas. I'm with ARC and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Brian Hernandez, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Jerry Moore. I'm a resident of Folsom. I'm a grateful recovering addict and also a member of the Anti Recidivism Coalition. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Charles Green, ARC, and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

I'm Ricardo London, staff member at ARC, recovering addict. I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Richard Wash. I'm a part of ARC. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Jacob Luna. I'm with the Anti Recidivism Coalition and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Malik Spooner, with Anti Recidivism Coalition and I'm in opposition to this Bill.

Good morning. My name is Harvest Davidson. I'm with the Anti Recidivism Coalition and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Juan Martinez and I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Jack Castello. I am a member of the Anti Recidivism Coalition and I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Jennifer Lacasse. I am with ARC and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hello, my name is Tyson Owen. I'm with Anti Recidivism Coalition and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Marco George again on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender, in opposition. Thank you.

Hi, I'm with Yuba County, The Narcan Angels, and I think we need more programs. I oppose.

Yes, I'm with. My name is Rafael and I'm with Anti Recidivism Coalition and I'm pleading for a No vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, I would like to, first of all, to the defense witness or the opposing witness. This is clearly a different playbook than dealing with the crack cocaine crisis in the '90s. Fentanyl is not akin to crack. These victims of this drug die. They don't have a chance for rehabilitation. This is a completely different toxin and should be treated as such. And therefore, when you consider that these victims have a final outcome, a final, they're gone. That deserves different consideration and penalty enhancements are more than deserved.

And I will clearly be supporting this very respectable Bill.

Thank you.

I respect that. You're also a sergeant with the San Francisco Police Department, as you have two sergeants also up here as well. And as my colleague Mr. Lackey also did mention, it's different. This is different than cocaine days. And it's the one pill everybody's been talking about. It's killing them and it's unfortunate. And the other thing that came up from the opposition was displacing families. And I get that. But we also need to think about the victims and what's happening with them.

Yeah, we may displace some families of those that are giving or selling the drugs, but we also got to remember the numerous victims whose families have also been hurt by this. They didn't ask for this. These people who are selling and giving these drugs made a choice to do that, and that comes with the consequences. I will be supporting this as well. And thank you to the author for doing this and for your witness as well, saying that this was a common sense Bill.

I completely agree. Thank you, guys.

Thank you, Ms. Bonta.

I agree absolutely that we have a need to be able to address the issue of the number of people who are dying because of fentanyl use. So I think in San Diego, accidental overdose was the leading cause of death, according to 2021 data, and 70% of those deaths involve fentanyl.

And the way that I think about policy is what kind of policy can we put in place that's going to change behavior. When we think about the high incidence of accidental overdose and death that comes with fentanyl because it's laced in to the drugs, often unknowingly. Right. I'm thinking about the kid sitting next to their friend at a party who thinks that they're taking one drug, and that drug happens to be laced with fentanyl.

And I'm concerned that the unintended consequence of this Bill would be that that person might choose to not actually call the police, or the people around them might not actually call the police to try to get care that they need while their friend is experiencing an overdose. It's incredibly important that we recognize that Assemblymember Ortega has a Bill that would actually allow us to have naloxone actively available for people.

I'm concerned about this Bill as it relates to the issue of great bodily harm and the voluntariness of victims ingestion in this instance, because the instance that I just gave the victim would have voluntarily ingested, but it has an impact on their friend that would potentially keep them from calling the police because they could potentially be worried about falling under this legislation. And I'm also concerned about what this does to an already determined case with People v. Ollo.

So I don't know if you can speak to that issue. So for me, I think one of the things that we're trying to get at is what kind of a change in behavior do we need? And I'm really wondering, the initial instinct to the Chair was to make sure that we were having these kinds of conversations within the broader context of how our policies can impact and change behaviors related to fentanyl.

So I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to perhaps look at this legislation within that broader context at a time that actually allows us to have that conversation from a public health and a public safety perspective. So it's more a question to the Chair, but also just a comment around specifically to the author related to the essential overturning of People v. Ollo in this legislation.

I'll let the other Members speak, and then I'll say something. I think my Vice Chair may chime in also. Go ahead.

So I share a lot of the same concerns that the Assembly Member from Oakland expressed I think that we want all of everyone, our loved ones, communities, to be safe and healthy. And we all are concerned about the unprecedented number of people dying from preventable drug overdoses. And I do believe that fentanyl is different than other drugs and needs a different kind of response.

But I also think that realize that studies show that increasing criminal penalties, at least for large chunks of those that are out there for street-level possession, doesn't really deter things. I just voted for, I think many of us just voted for a Bill that was really focused on those people that are putting this in the stream of commerce. That other Bill that we voted for was one that really focuses on the drug kingpins that are making the decisions to lace these pills with fentanyl.

And that was a distinguishing factor for me. When I look at this Bill, one of the things that concerns me is that it basically provides the crime enhancement when it's sold, furnished or administered or given, and it results in a significant bodily injury.

And so you could have a kid that basically has a pill that he thinks is something else and gives that to a friend, and all of a sudden that becomes not only a potential drug offense, but also it has a penalty enhancement, and this automatically does that. So I think this is the kind of thing that is sort of too broad in my mind.

And I think we do need to think about this as a public health emergency and look at the things that are going to prevent the deaths. I think the Assembly Member to my right has a Bill that really, and there are a number of bills that are moving their way through the Legislature that are focused on providing Narcan in more places, looking at how we have faster response teams, looking at public education for kids and people, and people in our communities about the risks of fentanyl.

And I think those are part of the solution. But I also think that when we're looking at increases in penalties, that they need to be very focused and targeted and really not result in enhancements when people do not know that what they are actually possessing or taking themselves has fentanyl in it. And that is, I think, the thing that is difficult, but I don't see this Bill. I think it's over broad from that perspective.

Ms. Ortega.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward today. I appreciate your efforts. As a mother and a Legislator, this fentanyl crisis has been keeping me up at night. I've also been meeting with a lot of the victims, parents who have lost children, which is why I introduce AB 1060, because I think we need to take a two pronged approach. It's a public safety issue, but also public health. And I went towards the public health first. My Bill is about saving lives. We need to save lives today.

We cannot allow more and more children, which is unfortunately, right now, fentanyl is the leading cause of deaths among babies, and we need to take care of that first. But I also understand the cry for holding those who are dealing this drug accountable, which is why I was an original supporter of AB 701. That Bill actually does take the approach of holding high-level dealers who are murdering our kids accountable.

And it takes a balanced approach, because, again, it addresses high-level dealers, the ones who are responsible for bringing this poison into our communities. I'm actually a co-author of that Bill now, and I ask my colleagues across the aisle to work with us on these issues moving forward. I hope that everyone signs on to these bills, because, again, it takes a two-pronged approach, and we need all hands on deck with this crisis.

But at the same time, we cannot go backwards and fill our prisons with kids of color who didn't know or don't know. We've moved so much further in making sure that we address the issues of the past, which is why I can't support today's Bill, but look forward to working with everyone on this issue of fentanyl poisoning in our communities.

Anyone? Sure, go ahead.

So, I apologize for not saying this earlier, but this is something I wanted to address prior to us getting onto this conversations, and we've already started. And I wanted to thank the Chair for allowing this to happen as well. That these conversations that we're going to have in today, they're critical, and we all have shared desires to solve these fentanyl crisis.

As a Committee, we have a responsibility to work collaboratively to make progress towards implementing policies that reduce the supply of fentanyl, provide resources for addiction treatment, and support. And this is to save lives of Californians. This is not a partisan issue, and we must set aside our differences to find common ground and meaningful solutions that protect our communities, all of our communities. Ultimately, our success in tackling fentanyl crisis will depend on our ability to work together in a spirit of collaboration, respect, and shared purpose.

Something I believe we have accomplished together, despite our differences in this Committee, at different times throughout the year, we've done that if you guys have been watching. This issue, by any measure is critical, and we must accomplish something real and impactful today. Hundreds of Californians are dying each week, and we must do more now. This cannot wait for tomorrow, next month, next year. The time is now, colleagues. We must do more on the front end and not the back end.

We must do this for prevention and for enforcement. I want to thank the Chair again for the opportunity to allow me to speak, and I look forward to working with all of you in this Committee on finding practical solutions and making a real difference again to save lives of our Californians. Thank you.

And to also help with the situation in regards to immunity for people who are calling 11376.5 of the Health and Safety Code actually provides immunity to people who are reaching out for help for medical reasons, if they're in possession of drugs. Actually, if I'm able to, I just want to read you guys a little bit because I feel the same way as well. But this right here, just real quick, says, this is 11376.5.

Notwithstanding any other law, it shall not be a crime for a person to be under the influence of or possess the personal use a controlled substance, controlled substance, analog or drug paraphernalinolia, if that person in good faith seeks medical assistance for another person, experience a drug related overdose, and that that person is related to the possession of controlled substances. And it goes on and goes on. But I urge you guys also to look at that. It also helps.

I know that the Chair, prior to, from what I know of the history of this Committee, they had concerns on that as well. And I think that's why that law was brought into effect. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. You know what? I usually wait till the end so I do this out order. And really, because there may be an opportunity to do something that this Committee normally doesn't do. But for the author, if he's so inclined to want to do so, that we can keep the discussion going, because I can kind of count right now, but the most important thing, and this is why I wanted to do hearings. I know I said fall, and so I moved it up to June.

And now it's pretty certain that we'll be doing these hearings in May to talk about the fentanyl crisis, because it's really time, it's really time to unite the fight against fentanyl and drug abuse. It's time to unite our efforts and not divide our efforts. We can no longer be in partisan camps anymore. We can no longer sit in one side versus the other. We've got to have an honest dialogue with one another. There really is a difference between a speedy action versus an effective process.

A speedy action doesn't get you what you want. It's just an action, but an effective process that we bring everything together, we may finally, finally get a handle on the drug problem. We all have the same shared values. That's what probably bothers me more than anything else about this discussion. We all have the same shared value to end fentanyl deaths and drug abuse. And to say that one side of the aisle versus the other doesn't, does not give us credit.

One of the reasons why I went ahead and decided to have this hearing, so that you could see how not only complicated it is to go through all the machinations of what we need to do, but to know that everybody on this panel has given this a deliberative process. But a lot of times in this process, it's not long enough for us to talk about it fully. Like your Bill. Look, I was a mortician during the crack cocaine crisis.

I'm not a mortician right now because of the crack cocaine crisis. To see a little baby casket because of crack cocaine, because of what the parents did or didn't do, the fact that it went off like a bomb in the Black community. There are people here mostly on this side that you look at. I know we're mostly people of color, but we're people of color that were hurt. Our communities were decimated by the war on drugs.

We can teach you what it's like to go through this. I know for a lot in suburbia right now, you're experiencing this for the first time. There are people here that can tell you how devastating it was and how devastating it still is today in their communities. The long-lasting effect is tremendous. And to lose loved ones, and I think each of us here can tell you loved ones that we've lost.

And all we're really saying is give us an opportunity to share that with you so that we can have a shared understanding of what needs to move forward. I'm looking at all the immediate things that we can do, and that's what I wanted to talk about in May. Whether it's testing illegal substances without the fear, as we said from my Vice Chair, without the fear of prosecution.

Provide broad access to overdose antidotes such as narcan for fentanyl, so we can immediately reduce, immediately reduce the number of people who die of fentanyl deaths. We can promote harm reduction techniques, provide more recovery clinics.

But most important, let's talk about massive funding to promote these efforts to ensure that the next generation, long after all of us are gone, that the next Public Safety Committee that meets 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now, not having the same discussion, what you're hearing from all of us on both sides. We want to end this. We really do want to end this once and for all.

And so I still would like to invite you as the author to be part of the discussion as we move forward in May. I beg you to be part of that discussion and your witnesses, because it's going to take all hands on deck to get this, to move this forward. And I don't know if you entertain even having us taking your Bill to an interim study so that you can be part of that May discussion.

But if you're not so inclined and you want to do an up or down vote, I understand. But as you can see, we're not the kind of Committee that just says we're going to throw away any idea. Today we resurrected an idea that died in this Committee and we brought it back and we were able to move it forward with some more examination study on it.

We're just trying to make sure this is not, as my Vice Chair is saying, let's take down the temperature, because the only people that win when we're fighting are the drug dealers. They're the winners when we go at one another. They truly are.

So let's figure out a way that we can work together finally to put them out of business and really work on the demand side, because I think what you're hearing from a lot of members here, we got to put more resources in the demand side so that we can effectively end this forever. So I'm going to get off my soapbox, but I thought I would at least put that out there, actually, since I've seen how members of this Committee feel.

And I also thought it was very important for everyone to understand the Members true feelings and that they have a heart about this. And they do care on both sides. They generally do care. We all may have different ideas of how to resolve it, but we want to resolve it. And with that, I will.

Chair can I just? Back to the concept of the interim study, I'm looking at and have kind of talked to our colleagues in the public health space and in the privacy space and others. I think we have something like 20 to 25 bills that are going through other committees that relate directly to the fentanyl crisis. So for us to not take a more comprehensive look at this particular Bill, which, again, back to behavior, there are different approaches to change behavior.

I believe that there's an opportunity to look at what the author is nobly trying to accomplish within the context of how we change behaviors from a public health perspective as well, which is why I would also implore the author to think about this interim study concept that the Chair has offered.

I know, putting you on the spot. Sorry.

Well, so I've tried to take dutiful notes of what my colleagues who I've worked together, most of which have worked together for many years, and I appreciate the concern where the Committee is coming from. I've struggled with this one, too, is how do we get at this problem from a holistic standpoint? I made a few notes, and I'll go through, try to respond to some of the comments. I raised my daughters as a single dad.

I have two daughters who are in this age group, and this is terrifying. It's terrifying that they could go out to a party and just take a tylenol and that's it. The last time I'd see them. So where I started with this was as a single father and the conversations I was having to have with my daughters. We talk about drugs, we talk about alcohol from a very young age, like we're supposed to do.

But fentanyl has brought a whole new avenue to it, because now it makes anything you ingest whatsoever possibly kill you, including Tylenol. Regular painkiller that most of us take every take, quite often. So that's where this started. I agree, too. It is a public health issue, no question. I don't think we need to take an either or approach. I do think we can do kind of walk and chew gum at the same time. I think that's part of it.

I think that's part of something that this Committee and this larger body is going to have to consider. All of us, all 80 of us are going to have to consider as we move forward on this. Yes, I absolutely will be a part of the further discussion. Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation. I'd love to do that, and I'd love to look at it from all the different ways we are going to have to look at this.

There's not a silver bullet that's going to solve this. There's just not. A couple of the comments are made I do want to respond to. Just in the air of thoroughness. I understand. I also can count. I could count as I started this Bill. I certainly can count here today. The Ollo case is different. It's actually differentiated on its facts for clarity. This does not in any way affect that case. It does not affect juveniles and there's nothing automatic about it. This isn't an automatic enhancement.

There's a number of precautions along the way to make sure that this doesn't continue on any sort of basis without an opportunity to review it based on the individual facts of certain cases. I do appreciate Mayor Gloria being in support. I have to stick up for my city a little bit. We're not a little backwater city. We're the 7th largest city in the country. And these are very real problems happening on the ground.

Maybe to you Dodger fans, you think that, but we're a large city, a very diverse city, large city, who's struggling with this up and down, north to south, east to west, across San Diego. And certainly, I think having partnered with the mayor on this, and this is something that's important to our city and to our region, I look forward to being a part of the discussion, asking to sort of amend it on the fly.

I mean, I sort of feel like, look, I can count too we're here. I have a pretty good idea how this is going to go. I'm happy that this continued to be studied, but I think at the point we're at now, had I been approached on this earlier, maybe we could have worked something out. But sort of sitting here today, I've had my witness come up.

I think in fairness to the Mayor and Mayor Gloria and the City of San Diego as well, I just assume, I guess we go ahead and vote on it, and then we can be a part, you know, whatever study you want to be a part of, I certainly will participate in, certainly will provide the resources from my office and my city to be helpful on that. But with that, I do thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do enjoy working with you, even when sometimes the results don't go the way maybe that I would like. I do appreciate working with you. I appreciate the comments of this Committee and my colleagues. And with that, I guess that would be my close.

Okay. You may call the roll. Oh, I guess I have to get a motion.

He wants a vote.

We need a motion and a second.

On AB 367 by Assemblymember Maienschein. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer. No. Jones-Sawyer, no. Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Bonta. Not voting. Bonta not voting. Bryan. Not voting. Bryan not voting. Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Ortega. Ortega not voting. Santiago. Santiago not voting. Zbur. Zbur not voting.

I'll change mine to not voting.

Jones-Sawyer, no to not voting.

That measure fails.

Thank you. Your honor, with the reconsideration.

Sure.

On reconsideration. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Santiago. Santiago, aye. Zbur. Zbur, aye.

Brief consideration been granted. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. I know you've been patient. I apologize. I know you were here. First, item number six. I'm sorry, I have two Patterson sitting here. Which one is this? Jim Patterson, AB 1058, item number six. Thank you for waiting.

Thank you for the opportunity to present, to put a little context to my work and concerns with respect to fentanyl. I would like to remind this Committee of AB 2365. It passed out of this Committee. It went to the floor. It was signed by the Governor. This created six areas, two in Northern California, two in Central California, and two in the Northern California area. The Governor signed the Bill. We asked for $3 million for these grants. We got 5 million.

The Department of Health is very interested in it. They appreciate. And so I wanted you to know that I come at this in a more holistic approach. AB 2365 was based on a cooperation of not just law enforcement, but of education, health care, people who are trying to get addicts free and communicating to particularly kids in the idiom and in the marketplace that they understand and they will hear and listen to.

And so I think it is important that we do holistic kinds of things, but we're faced with something in Fresno and other places, which is because fentanyl has such a high kill power with such a small amount. Oftentimes when a dealer who has 2000 pills is interdicted and there are arrests that are being made, they can't get to a felony. It's a misdemeanor. And so we have instances in Fresno county where someone with 1000 pills or 1500 pills, they're out in two days.

So what we've tried to do with this Bill is to rationalize the kill power of fentanyl, and the kill power, for example, of a kilo. And it's impossible to get to a weight if we don't change that weight. And so we tried with professionals and people in addict treatment and those kinds of things, try to come up with a rationalization of this. And what we mean by that is we don't want to touch the addict.

But at the same time we don't want that addict's drug dealer to have a misdemeanor with 2000 pills in his possession. And so we tried to find a balance here. What we are really wanting to do is target drug dealers here. And you have heard kingpins and all of that said before. And so if a dealer is detained with say 28 or 30 milligrams of fentanyl, that translates into maybe 200 pills. A little over 200 pills.

So to be clear, the typical opioid addicted individual isn't carrying around 200 pills. They have a couple or maybe they're picking it up from circumstances and parties or whatever happens. So we wanted to make sure that we got to a place where it was clear that the particular dealer is one of these gang Member cartels, engaged in this for profit and set that bar at 220 some odd pills, something like that.

And we were able to talk with people who help addicts all the time in Fresno that Flint Anderson is here. It's a wonderful program. And so what we have before you and I wanted to put it in context with 2365 that we can do both. And we can wisely judge how much is a dealer with 1000 pills hurting people and killing them. But at the same time we want to make sure that we don't turn the addict and have a felony penalty.

But at the same time you can understand the pain of people and the hurt of people whose kids or loved ones have been taken by a drug dealer who has 2000 pills, 3000 pills, and yet can't get to that kilo weight. And they're interdicted and they're on a misdemeanor and they're right back. So if we care about the addicts, then I think we need to also care that we shelter them a bit from being tossed into a felony.

But at the same time take a good hard look at those who have a lot in their possession. And so that's the framework here. And so I'm asking you to think a little bit in terms of, is part of caring for addicts. Putting something together that maybe separates them significantly from the victims that they're selling this to. And so we tried to find a sweet spot which protected addicts.

But at the same time, if you've got 34500 pills or more, then I think that there is a rational case to be made that that ought to kick over into the kind of penalties that I think drug dealers deserve, but without touching those that are vulnerable. And I think I bring AB 2365 in front to remind you that this is a part of my heart as well, which was to educate, to have health people working on it, those kinds of things.

And so I'm asking you to consider this may be a reach, a step for some of you, but I hope that you will understand that we've tried to narrow this in a way which did not capture the occasional user with 23 pills and the like. We think the threshold works, could be open to raising the threshold a little bit more. Who knows?

But I do think that there has to be a place for the drug dealer with lots of pills, with lots of kill power to have to have some consequences with respect to what is honestly a crime that I think deserves felony status. And that's what we're trying to do. And I hope you understand that we're trying to make that distinction. I have with us to testify in support of the. Pamela Smith, Fresno PD. Yeah, Pamela Smith with parents and addicts in need.

Dean Cardinali is a Member of the Fresno Police Department's fentanyl overdose resolution team. And in fact, a lot of what Mr. Cardinal does and what Payne does has been part of this comprehensive educational work on making sure that we could take care of addicts and help them, but also warn and instruct and inform young people, particularly in idiomatic settings and in media, that they understand and they get the message one pill can kill. So I think there's a harmony, a combination of efforts.

We just can't let the drug dealers with 2000 pills and part of a big supply just continue to do it. It's sort of this perverse incentive for cocaine and heroin dealers to think, well, why don't I get into the business of fentanyl? Because I can do a whole lot with a lot of this, thousands of pills and only face a misdemeanor. So that's what we're trying to do. I hope there's a sensitivity with respect to the sharpening of the pencil and trying to work this through.

And with that, I'm going to ask PameLA Smith to testify two minutes, as I understand, two and a half, or.

You can do three and he has two, whatever way you want to.

Yes. Then Dean, five knowledge total, because I think he has a significant history in Fresno with the Police Department as well as the fentanyl overdose resolution team. And so much of what you see in AB 2365 has come about with this collaboration in Fresno that is a whole lot more than just incarceration.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. We're anxiously waiting. You may be.

I think we're going to go with Pamela first.

Okay. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank you to the Committee for setting the hearing and listening to these very important fentanyl bills today. My name is Pamela Smith, and I'm from Fresno. My son, Jackson Smith, died from a fentyl overdose on July 3 2016 at the age of 22. In the early morning hours of July 3, I received a call from the person that was with him, who told me that she had to call 911 because he wasn't breathing.

So we raced down to St. Agnes Hospital emergency room, where I met with the ER Doctor, who told me we have been working on him for over an hour and there's nothing more we can do. He then asked me if I wanted to see Jackson, and of course, I said yes. So he escorted me into trauma room one, the room that has all the life saving equipment in it.

And it was filled with doctors and nurses, and there was a very large male nurse straddling my son, giving him chest compressions, trying to save his life. Within seconds of me entering that room, the Doctor said, time of death, 318. I urge you to pass AB 1058 so dealers who sell fentanyl will face the penalties that they deserve. I support this Bill because it specifically doesn't target addicts or casual users like my son Jackson.

He only bought one pill that day, and it cost him his life. These drug dealers and manufacturers of fentanyl don't care how many people they kill or how many lives they ruin. Since Jackson's death, I have made it my mission to fight against fentanyl and the opioid crisis, to educate our community that this can happen anywhere, to any family. I work at a nonprofit in Fresno called Pain Parents and addicts in need, along with founder Flint Anderson.

And we are doing everything in our power to save lives. And I hope today that you'll do the same, because now is the time to act. Thank you.

Thank you.

Members of the Public Safety Assembly. My name is Dean Cardnelli. I'm a detective with the Fresno Police Department and have been there for 27 years. I worked in the field of narcotics for the past 16 years. I've seen the damage and destruction that drugs have done to neighborhoods, families, and innocent lives lost because dealers seek to manipulate and exploit innocent people for financial gain.

I lead a task force called the fentanyl Overdose Resolution Team, better known as fort, which is the focus to respond out to fentanyl overdose and overdose deaths when they happen almost like a homicide squad 24/7 we responded out to and normally we respond out to kids between the ages of 16 and 21. Over the past three years, the Ford has responded out to over 100 and fentanyl 180 fentanyl overdose and over 90 deaths.

The team has made over 80 arrests which involved the dealers providing fentanyl narcotics to the victims for financial gain. During these arrests and interviews, none of these dealers were drug addicts. The dealers we are focusing on are not users. They seek to make money at the expense of people's agony and addiction.

In March 2020, the first case that led to the creation of the four team, the fentanyl overdose resolution team began which involved a high school senior selling fentanyl pills to fellow students and causing students to overdose. Building a case against this dealer led to the source who sold fentanyl pills and firearms over social media. This source was tied to the Sinaloa drug trafficking organization was responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives lost to drugs such as fentanyl and meth.

A statement made this fentanyl dealer found in his phone, which we found in his phone stated, we are going to make as many opioid and homeless kids as possible. Another mission of the fort is to educate the public and the victims of the dangers of fentanyl.

We accomplished this through presentations at schools, billboards, psas and an Emmy nominated documentary called Killer High the silent crisis on April 21, Governor Gavin Newsom announced a new partnership with law enforcement to assist with the ongoing efforts to address the state's financial fentanyl crisis. According to the Governor, the agreement between all four agencies will focus on dismantling fentanyl trafficking and disrupting the supply of the daily drug in the cities by holding operators of large scale drug trafficking operations accountable.

Passing AB 1058 will assist the Governor in his mission with stopping the fentanyl crisis by holding fentanyl dealers accountable. I want to thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support name and organization.

Mr. Chair and Members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.

Kim Stone Stone advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association.

In support Mr. Chairman Carl London on behalf of Crime Victims United in support thank you.

Morgan Geyer Plasser county District Attorney in support.

Flint Anderson, founder of Pain in support.

Joe Patterson on behalf of my cousin who lost his life in support of this Bill.

Chris Didier, on behalf of my late son, Zachary Didier, I represent victims of Illicit drugs in support.

Thank you, sir.

Sandra Newman, on behalf of my stepdaughter. Talia Newman, I support.

Thank you.

Father of victim fentanyl overdose. This is my beautiful daughter. Today I not do support.

Thank you, sir.

Tim Ho Sacramento District Attorney in support thank you.

Laura Fragoso with arrive alive California in support

Angela Webb, arrive alive California in support.

Laura Didier, mother of Zach Didier, forever 17, in support.

Kelly Amru, in support.

Richard Amru, in support.

Natalie Page, for my brother Brett Page, who lost his life.

Stephanie Herrera with the ENR project, in Support.

Tony Arnes, a pastor in Folsom and my 19 year old died September 302021. So let's get her done.

Tawny Arnes, mom of Josh Arnes, whose dealer is still on the streets. I'm in support.

Lisa Smith Camp Fresno County District Attorney, in support.

Mike Gallardo, Alameda County Narcotics Task Force, in support.

Nicole Wartelman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you. Chair and members Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in support

Matthew Cyverling, on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association, both in support. Thank you.

J. C. Carpenter, recovered drug act and. Representing many families who have lost lives. Of their loved ones, in support.

Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition? Could you make.

Good morning, chair and Members, I want to start by acknowledging Jackson and saying, I'm sorry for your loss and for everybody else in the room who's lost somebody, and that I understand very deeply the desperation and the desire to do something.

And I want to share also that I recently had a young loved one in my family who took a drug and had a seizure and very thankfully did not die, but is also now suffering from paranoia and won't go get help because he's afraid he will be in trouble.

And that is also one of the consequences of increasing penalties and using the criminal legal system as a response, is that people are also afraid to do anything to get any kind of help or approach anybody for further assistance. If the goal of AB 1058 is to save lives, there are many other responses which have already been named here today, many things that Members of this Committee are either co authoring or have already supported.

I have the list of 22 bills here that are addressing the fentanyl crisis in other ways. Many of them, authored by Republican authors, is obviously and many by Democrats. There's many people in this Legislature that are truly trying to do something, and I applaud everybody for the work that they're doing to try to respond to this, because it is not an easy, one size fits all solution, very clearly.

But we also know that increased criminal penalties have not been shown to deter distribution in particular, and as the analysis pointed out, may be even less effective in deterring drug dealing, in part because where there is a market, there will be supply. Right.

And particularly, I understand the sentiment that this is trying to go after dealers and not people just in possession, but that is still, when we're looking at 701 and the amounts of drugs there, that is obviously very high level distribution. This is pretty mid level distribution. Those are the kinds of people dealing drugs on the street that are quite easy to replace if we scoop them up and put them in jails.

So we do desperately need to focus on the demand here and understanding how do we educate, how do we save lives with many of the things that you are doing in your community. But also, why are so many people so desperate for drugs in our society? I mean, there are, like deep cultural things here that are not easy to solve, and it won't be solved with bills like this. I forgot to introduce myself, Danica Rodarma, on behalf of initiate justice and urging opposition to this Bill.

Good morning, chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Dr. David Goodman. I'm an assistant Professor at the Division of Infectious Diseases in the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. I'm here today in respectful opposition of Abay 1058. My views are those of my own expertise and not of those of my institution or those of my funders. I'm both a clinician and a researcher, and in both spheres I see the devastating impact that criminalization of drug use has in people. The results are clear.

Laws like AP 1058 only result in mass incarceration, mass deaths, and high rates of infectious diseases like HIV and hepatitis C. And the likely outcome of a Bill like AB 1058 passing is 28.5 grams. Right. So drug dealers are smart. They have good chemists. They'll just create more lethal drugs, more potent drugs, smaller drugs that will be under this radar. So be careful with that.

At the same time that all of mass incarceration and mass overdoses are occurring, only 20% or less of people with a substance use disorder actually get treatment. This is dismal. Imagine if we ever saw this in breast cancer, diabetes or heart disease. We only see this in substance use disorders and why? Because we think it's something voluntary or it's some kind of moral failure. But the research is clear. We know that it is involuntary.

People who wind up using drugs have so many factors above them that lead them to their drug use. Where they were born, who were their parents, what were their genes, what is their socioeconomic status? In order to reduce the harms of fentanyl use, we need to shift to evidencebased strategies like Low barrier, easy access to health care and other behavioral services.

We provide less services to people who use drugs where, in fact, due to the decades of trauma that these people face, they need more services and more than just the quantity. They need quality of services, dignified, non stigmatizing services. That is where we need to be placing our resources. I lead a NIDA funded study in Los Angeles where we're evaluating mobile health clinics to try to help people who use drugs. For many of these people, this is the first health encounter that they've ever had.

So, in conclusion, we really need to invest in making it easier for people to access methadone or buprenorphine or naloxone. There is no disease in America that has more restrictions for treatment than substance use disorders made up rules that make it harder for people to get better. AB 1058 only invests in more criminalizations, and this is only going to make things worse.

Thank you. Any other witnesses? In opposition.

Margot George on behalf, half of the California Public defender's office and the San Francisco public defender in opposition. Thank you.

Amy Dunkel, from broken no more. In strong opposition.

Brendan Woods, Alameda County Public defender and California Public Defense Association. In opposition.

Anne Irwin, Smart Justice California. In strong opposition.

Glenn Backus, Ella Baker, Center for Human Rights. In opposition.

Alicia Benavidez Lewis, on behalf of Drug Policy alliance, in strong opposition.

Carmen Nicole Cox, ACLU California Action. In strong opposition.

Wesley Saver, Health Rate 360. In opposition. Thank you. You.

Andrew Nguyen, Executive Director, Inside Garden program strong opposition.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in opposition.

Bill Melendez, Smart Justice California. In opposition.

My name is Gary Burt. I'm a life coach with the Anti Recidivism Coalition and I'm in opposition to AB 1058.

Julian Mcduffie, anti resilisant coalition and I'm opposed this Bill.

I'm Junior Vargas with ARC and I oppose this Bill.

Carl Tannenbaum, retired San Francisco police officer and foot soldier in the war on drugs. I adamantly oppose this Bill.

I'm Ricardo London. I'm a juvenile life coach for anti recidivism coalition and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Espan Nunez, with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, inside garden program and social change and opposition. Thank you.

Lawrence Cox, legal services for prisons with children. All of us or none. Strongly opposed.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

Emily Wonder, on behalf of the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition and Young Women's Freedom center, in opposition.

Charles Green, Arc. I oppose this Bill.

Leon Burns, with the anti recidivism coalition. I strongly oppose.

Melissa Cosi, with California's for safety and justice respectful opposition.

Sean Gage, anti recidivism coalition, opposed.

John Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative justice, strongly opposed.

Tyson Nguyen with ARC, strongly opposed.

Candice Lewis with the Anti Recidivism coalition and I oppose.

Juan Martinez with ARC. I oppose

Willie woods, anti recidivism coalition. I oppose.

I oppose Tommy Deluno with the anti Recidivism coalition and I oppose this Bill.

on behalf of legal services for prisoners with children. Also here on behalf of all of us are none. In strong opposition. Thank you.

Jerry Moore, resident of Folsom, little over two years, clean, full time single father, Member of anti recidivism coalition, strongly opposed.

Henry Ortiz, with legal services for prisoners for children and all of us are none. Sacramento chapter, strongly opposed. Thank you.

Hello. I'm Christina Robinson. I'm with all of us are none. And community healers and a victim of mass incarceration is amongst everybody else in opposed this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Jack Castello. I'm a Member of ARC and I'm in strong opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Brian Hernandez and I'm with Arc. And I'm strongly oppose.

I'm Jamie Carper. I'm a Member of ARC. I oppose this Bill.

My name is Johnny Chadavong. I'm with ARC and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. We'll now bring it back to Committee Members for any comments or questions. zero, Mr. Lackey. Yeah.

If I could ask one of the witnesses, with reference to the amount that this Bill refers to, and 28.3 grams, the reference is that's mid level possession. Can you kind of articulate, is that clearly above the sell amount where it's considered possession for sale? Could you kind of explain, because most people are really kind of unfamiliar with what that measurement means.

Yeah, absolutely, sir. So that is mid level drug dealer. An addict is not going to have that much fentanyl on them. An average fentanyl addict normally uses about six to seven fentanyl pills a day, just so they won't get sick. The amount of fentanyl, an ounce, that would be over 400 pills of fentanyl, you'd be in possession of if you had an ounce of fentanyl. That's what it equates to. So obviously, that is not a usable amount. That's a sellable amount. That's somebody that's out there selling this stuff to our victims.

Yeah. To me, mid level is below 400 pills. I mean, that's a lot. Anyways, I'm not here to argue that point, but what I do want to state is something very, very important that I agree and respect with the remarks of my colleague over there. And I highly respect that we actually focus on behavior. However, let's be honest, lack of consequences for peddling fentanyl clearly will not change behavior. Again, lack of consequences is something that's very, very critical. You can sigh all you want there, sir, but I would argue that increased consequences are a response to justice demands.

We talk about the argument about deterrence. We all want deterrence. But satisfying fairness is also a consideration. Injustice and too little consideration is given to that piece. And it's very frustrating. I'm very, very excited that I hear that we want to unite on this fight against fentanyl. But I'm ready to unite as long as we are actually ready to fight. Fight against the poison. This is not like all the other drug circumstances that we've faced in our society before.

This is a poison, and most the users have no idea what they are ingesting. That's a completely different matter. And we need to focus on this behavior in a very serious way. And adding consequences is not too much to ask for. So I will be supporting this Bill next. Mr. Bryan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'm incredibly sorry for your loss and to all the families who are here. And it takes a lot of courage to come to the capitol to testify at all. And so thank you for being willing to be a part of this conversation and the many, many conversations that this body and the state is going to have to have going forward. Substance abuse is a long history in my family. And when I say like a long history, I mean I have a literal half dozen siblings who are fetal cocaine or fetal alcohol exposed. I was told my entire childhood that my grandmother likely passed away from an overdose. I met her when I was 18.

I had been adopted as a kid. She had actually been clean for 18 years because not being able to keep me and raise me was a part, a driving force for her sobriety. Very proud of Nana. Now fentanyl has played a role in my family as well. Members of this Committee know I have a younger brother who was found face down in North Park because something he had got was laced.

Thankfully, he survived because naloxin, Narcan and other life saving medications do have a role and have a huge role to play in making sure that we mitigate this and get people access to life saving medication when and in the event of an overdose. I'm glad we're shifting away from the criminalization of substance abuse, although not for everybody. But we know that criminalizing people who are suffering from trauma, anxiety and the struggles that lead to substance use and abuse is not the solution.

Disrupting this crisis is lethally important. But we know that the repeated incarceration has not proven to be the answer. For every person you take off the street, if you haven't disrupted the supply or the demand, another person will fill that gap. And let's be clear, 28 grams is 1oz. You will be taking a lot of people off the street for an ounce. In fact, I don't even know if we can call you a drug dealer if you have less than an ounce of something on you.

There's a lot that we have to do. Part of it requires massive investments, investments we're not making. We spend over $15 billion just on our state prison infrastructure. That's not counting our jail infrastructure, our law enforcement infrastructure, just our prison infrastructure. $15 billion. We don't spend nearly that much in mental health support, in care and public health support, in economic mobility and opportunity. We have a lot of work to do.

I can't support any measures today that feel like aimless patchwork solutions rooted in failed strategies of the past when the people are calling for comprehensive and innovative solutions. I sit on the Select Committee that is looking at this through all of these intersections. As was mentioned, there's over two dozen bills that are moving through the Legislature and other committees, mainly rooted in public health.

We're going to hear a Bill today that requires another task force be created that brings law enforcement, community and public health stakeholders all to the table. It brings scholars to the table. I'm not going to discredit your work. I know what it means to be an academic, having worked at UCLA prior to being in office. That scholarship, that data is important, and our decisions should be driven by that, in addition to the lived experience of the families and those who have been impacted.

I appreciate the author and all who are bringing legislation before this body for us to consider, and I'm hoping that everyone will be a part of the conversations that need to happen going forward. My friend at UCLA, John Woodenwood, said, don't mistake activity for achievement. This Bill is activity and the people deserve more. Thank you.

Anyone else

Yes. Well, first I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. And ma'am, also thank you for coming in, and I'm sorry for your loss as well and all the others. A question came up from the opposition that why are people so desiring these drugs? And I don't know if we'll know that question right now, but I think sitting on our hands right now and doing nothing is not the answer.

I know we've talked about mass incarceration a lot, and I'm learning that more and more on this Committee as well, but I still think we need to do something. You mentioned, sir, that less people are in drug rehab or taking drug courses or drug, however they can to get off drugs. And I agree with you. Usually people got drug treatment not because they volunteered, but because they were incarcerated. And we have a Proposition that basically eliminated that.

And I have seen in my experience in my other professional career that they haven't got the help that they needed, and that's when they got their help. I've actually been thanked for arresting people because that helped them. They were hitting the rock bottom and they got the help that they needed. They don't always know they need the help. And usually the laws that are made here help remind them that, hey, you're going to need some help now. So that's what I believe that is doing.

But I think the big picture that we're missing here are the victims rights. We don't think too much about the victims. We had so many people come up here that's holding pictures of their family Members who didn't know that what they were taking was going to kill them that day. And I think we need to remember that also because they need to have a strong voice in this room as well.

I think we have programs that can help some of these people that are incarcerated if they're allowed to give the time. I've seen many people turn their lives around, and I totally believe in that as well. But I think we need to get them there. And by doing that is unfortunately bringing in some consequences. So I will be supporting this Bill. Thank you, Mrs. Zbur.

So I share a lot of the comments from my colleague sitting to my left. And first of all, I'm so sorry for your loss. I know how hard it must be for you to be here today and listen to us debate these really very difficult issues. One of the things that I think is that we need to be making decisions that are based on research and data and facts. And we know from the war on drugs and the failure there that extra enhancements don't generally have much of an impact on street level drug dealing. They just don't.

And this isn't in the context of there not being any consequences. I mean, the existing law already provides punishments of up to four years for possession of fentanyl, for up to, what is it, five years for sale, for up to nine years for transport. And I know those numbers of years can never be enough for anyone whose family is affected by that.

But is adding another number of years on top of that, is that really going to change that underlying behavior from someone who is basically selling 200 pills on the street? I question whether or not most of those folks know that they're selling pills laced in fentanyl. And so that's why I actually am not going to be able to support this Bill today. It's why I supported AB 701.

I think that is the right approach, really looking at making sure that the consequences are really focused on the people that are making decisions to lace the pills. And I don't think that that's what this Bill focuses on. So I want to thank the author for being part of the dialogue on this.

I also know that there are 20 something other bills that are focusing on making sure that we have an ability to respond quickly, that we've got Narcon in the community, that we are educating our kids. I am the daughter of an 18 year old, and I worry every day about what she might innocently be doing and have had conversations with her about this. And so this isn't something that I take lightly.

And I don't know what you've gone through yourself, but I have a sense just thinking about my own kid and what could happen to her or to my 214 year olds. But I do think that we need to be focusing on what is going to be effective to protect our community. I think it's the health approaches. I think it's focusing on the people that are making decisions to lace the thousands of pills that are going out into the streets.

And I think that the studies that we've seen out there have just shown that adding more criminal penalties to this level of possession just doesn't really have much of an impact. But I do want to thank you for bringing the Bill forward today. Ms. Bonta.

Just want to be clear about what we are doing. We are doing something in the State of California. Not enough, but we have been doing something. We have in the Governor's Budget proposal, focusing on increasing redistribution of naloxone, distribution of fentanyl strips, and developing innovative ways of delivering drug treatment and harm reduction services to those most in need.

We're right now in the state budget reviewing a California overdose and harm reduction initiative that would have $61 million of one time funding over four years go to harm reduction programs for staff and costs related to delivery of naloxin fentanyl strips and drug treatment.

Navigation we also have $40 million appropriation in the General Fund to extend behavioral health Pilot project, which would provide General acute care hospitals with grants to hire behavioral health counselors and peer navigators for their emergency departments to help patients with addiction and behavioral health needs. Starting treatment and continuing that, we're looking at over 20 bills related to addressing the fentanyl health crisis in this cycle. We looked at over a dozen bills in the last legislative cycle to be able to that we are not doing nothing.

We are trying to meet the urgency of this moment, this painful moment. I myself have family Members who were a part of the war on drugs on both sides. People who were subject to a one dose that got them addicted to crack cocaine, that got them addicted to methamphetamine. It was a terminal illness that lasted for a very long time.

Instead of one dose that killed them immediately, it's death, whether it happens instantaneously or over the course of many, many years, as terminal cancer might, for instance. We are not doing nothing. I cannot do this thing right here, though, because I actually don't think it is moving the ball forward in any way that is different from the war on drugs. Just to kind of speak to this Bill specifically. This Bill has 28.35 grams, which is 1oz. That's six packets of sugar.

That's several pills, because it can contain some fentanyl. That's not 200 or 400 pills. I just want to kind of be clear about what we're talking about, because in our rush to do something, we also need to be unclouded and make sure that we're doing the right thing.

And for me, given the fact that we already have existing laws making possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of sale and substance punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of 23 or four years, we already have existing laws making transportation and sale of controlled substances punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of 34 or five years, and transportation to a contiguous county with the state punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of 36 or nine years.

We already have legislation and statute in our criminal code that allows us to be able to address what I believe the author, again, is nobly trying to ensure that we focus on right here. So for those reasons, I cannot be supportive of this Bill today.

Anyone else? You may close, Mr. Patterson.

Well, I do understand the concerns that have been, that have been raised here. I do. I can understand the issues in academia, those kinds of things. But the reality is that we have dealers in Fresno with 2000 pills that the worst you can do is a misdemeanor. They're out in two days. If we really cared about the addicts, wouldn't we also care that their dealers are on the street churning more and more?

That's why we were trying to be sensitive about the users. And having small amounts isn't going to kick that into the felony. But the counterpoint to all of this, though, is if there are not consequences, there will be repeat supply available. And I agree, we have to deal with the demand.

There are other aspects in all of this that I appreciate, but at the same time, I hope you feel and understand the angst, the hurt, the anger, to know that a dealer that might have killed Jackson would not have been subject to a felony, a misdemeanor with 23 days, they're out. And so, yeah, I agree. Supply is important. Demand is important. I don't think it's either or. And then I want to finish with this.

My wife Sharon, for 25 years, has been the West Coast regional Director for a prison ministry called Prison Fellowship. I've been to prisons. I've seen people who are changing, who are learning, who are having aha. Moments about getting clean. And that organization helps to place them in halfway houses and in homes and in caring churches that help them step through and get free from what got them into the prison in the first place. So I'm not either or.

But I do think there has to be some degree of justice, but mixed with mercy. And I think that's what we're trying to do here.

Okay. Thank you. I also want to thank your witness for being here today. And really, not to exacerbate your pain, but I think it would really be powerful when we have our may hearing, definitely will invite you to come. But I know it's. I mean, it's extremely difficult, but what you shared with us was also extremely powerful. Very powerful.

And so it's just really important that we hear from everyone in all sides so we can come to some resolutions. We did make some suggestions to modify this Bill. The author refused those recommendations. And normally this Committee, when we make recommendations to help get this through, their likelihood of them getting through are extremely high. Sometimes doesn't make everybody happy. But when that does happen, we try to go out of our way, the Committee as a whole, to try to make things happen.

And so if this doesn't make it, that's probably why it didn't get out of this Committee, because we couldn't work collaboratively to make this happen. That's 12 let's make it clear right now and just stop this discussion about, one, nothing's being done. As my colleague from the Bay Area said, there's quite a bit being proposed and being done. And I just think it's a disservice when, you know, the Governor is doing things at the border with the National Guard.

The Governor is trying to provide Narcan in high schools. The Attorney General has a task force. We have CHP working on this right now, today as we speak. And to say we're not doing anything, I think is a disservice to the people who are working on it, including law enforcement that's working on it right now.

I would like to know, and I think this Committee would like to know if there are drug dealers that are not being prosecuted, which seems to be the story being told over and over again. This Committee would like to have that discussion because that is a real discussion we should have about people slipping through the cracks.

And this Committee is very open to how to closing that so no one gets, not if we have the evidence, law enforcement has it, they give it to the DA, the judge should, and the system should work so that person is no longer on the street with the existing laws. If there is a serious problem that needs to be brought to us and brought to us immediately so we can get on it and plug that hole immediately.

And obviously, I can't speak for everybody on this Committee, but I feel pretty comfortable that we would do whatever it takes to plug that hole. Mr. Chair, with respect to that, with that, we have a motion. Second, call the roll.

AB 1058 by Assembly Member Jim Patterson. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. John-Sawyer, no. Alanis, aye. Bonta, no. Bryan, no. Lackey, aye. Ortega, no. Santiago, no. Zbur, no

I'm sorry. Measure failed.

Request reconsideration.

Go to vote.

On reconsideration. Joan Sawyer, aye. Alanis, aye. Banta, aye. Bryan, aye. Lackey, aye. Ortega, aye. Santiago, aye. Zbur, aye.

Reconsideration has been granted.

I appreciate that. And as that process moves forward, I'd like to hear more about what possible amendments we couldn't accept the other ones for reasons I didn't get a chance to explain.

We're done. Thank you. Thank you. We'd like to work on that, but you get another. Just let's talk about it. Mr. Rodriguez. That would be item number three. AB 4714. Thank you. Mr. Chair Members.

I'm proud to present AB 474, a Bill requiring the state threat assessment center at the California Office of Emergency Services to support state and local fentanyl task force. As you know, transnational criminal organizations are supplying the drugs that are addicting and killing our children. As part of the overall strategy combating the illegal opioid crisis, we must disrupt these networks of criminals and get opioids off our streets.

It is critical that we do everything we can to protect our state from threats to our public health. This Bill will also complement the governor's master plan for tackling the fentanyl and opioid crisis, which includes the 30 million to expand California National Guard's work to prevent drug trafficking and 15 million over two years to establish and operate the fentanyl enforcement program within the Department of Justice to combat manufacturing, distribution and trafficking.

Additionally, this Bill was strengthened the initiative recently announced by the Governor in San Francisco to establish a partnership between the California Highway Patrol, the California National Guard, San Francisco Police Department, and the San Francisco District Attorney's office to combat drug trafficking. Again, fentanyl and other opioids are killing Californians, and related deaths continue to increase. Our children have been severely affected by this crisis and are dying from drugs they likely know little to nothing about. For all these reasons I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

With me to testify in support is Corey Salzillo from the California State Sheriff's Office and Elisa from the League of Cities. Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members Elisa Arcidiocono with the League of California Cities, speaking on behalf of cities across the state in strong support of AB 474. This measure would stem the tide of illicit substance related deaths in California through increased collaboration with state and local agencies to illuminate, disrupt, degrade and dismantle criminal networks trafficking opioid drugs that pose a threat to California.

Local communities experience the realities of the opioid epidemic each day through the increasing toll on families, first responders, educators, child welfare agencies, public safety officials, health professionals and community organizations, among others. This is a statewide tragedy that cities cannot solve by themselves. As committed partners in finding solutions to address the growing fentanyl crisis in our state, we urge you to support this measure.

Now more than ever is the time to take action on measures that will preserve human life and improve the safety and well being of all Californians. Fentanyl poisonings and rising death toll illustrate a complex issue requiring complex, multifaceted solutions. Calcity's policy supports additional funding and resources to address the fentanyl crisis through appropriate prevention and intervention efforts, educational awareness campaigns, and increased access to life saving overdose treatment aids.

Cities not only welcome collaboration with our state and federal partners, but we truly require it in order to meaningfully address the fentanyl crisis facing our communities. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, not to belabor what the author and previous witness said, but partnerships are a key facet of what our approach should be to countering illegal drug trafficking, coordinate investigations, enforcement actions. Prosecutions between state and local law enforcement partners will eliminate barriers and leverage authorities and resources to identify, investigate, disrupt and dismantle at every level of operations the ability of cartels and other criminal networks to smuggle drugs, especially illicit fentanyl, into California.

So because of this multi pronged approach to address this huge problem, we're happy to support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other in support? Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition?

Becca Kramer-Madder on behalf of ACLU California action in respectful opposition, AB 474 further entrenches the work the fusion center, known as the State Threat Assessment center, or stack, in ways that exacerbate the harms of fusion centers. Fusion centers function like governmentrun data brokers, enabling problematic surveillance and facilitating the dangerous sharing of people's data with out of state authorities, while also exacerbating harmful policing practices. Fusion centers are susceptible to abuse and undermine the rights and safety of community Members, including labeling prochoice activists as violent extremists.

Unfortunately, AB 474 builds on this problematic remit of fusion centers, including the targeting of particular communities. The bill's final legislative finding muddles opioid distribution with immigration and thefts of intellectual property, singles out people from a particular country, and using heated rhetoric threatens to further exacerbate improper targeting based on nationality or family ancestry. AB 474 has other problems as well.

Its operative language mandates stack to take action against unspecified criminal organizations, while providing no basis for assuming these unspecified organizations cause the problems the Bill hopes to remedy, nor providing any metrics or guidance to establish what success looks like in this endeavor.

Rather than appreciating the domestic causes of opioid addiction in the fentanyl crisis or providing support for proven nonlaw enforcement approaches to curtailing the demand for these drugs, the Bill assumes that transnational criminal organizations are the causes for these crisis and further entrenches the misguided assumption that we can police and criminalize our way out of drug crises.

We have tried this before with the failed war on drugs and seen the devastating consequences on people's lives, how it harms communities most impacted by drug addiction without addressing the public health issues these laws were meant to solve, we urge you to instead approach drug crises in restorative and life affirming public health oriented ways that do not have dangerous collateral consequences on people and communities of color and of lower incomes. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there anyone else in opposition?

Hello, Chairman Members Henry Moore Gilad here, policy analyst with legal services for prisoners with children here. On behalf of all of us are none in strong opposition. Thank you enortis with all of us or none and legal services for prisoners with children opposing thank you.

Henry Ortiz with all of us or none and legal services for prisoners with children opposing thank you.

Alicia Benavides Lewis in opposition on behalf of the following organizations Immigrant Legal Resource Center, South Bay People Power, Inc. Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Asian Americans Advancing justice Asian law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, Buenosino in Ventura County, Inland Coalition for Immigrant justice, and California Immigrant Policy Center.

Carmen Nicole Cox right now on behalf of Oakland Privacy foundation, in strong opposition thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to Committee Members. Any questions? Comments? You want to give us a try? Go Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, just real quickly, I keep hearing the term on the opposition to these measures that we need to be considering. Restorative justice, that's completely void of considering the victims and the balance that lady justice cries for when you consider both the victim and the offender, because when you have a dead victim, there's no restoring that. They're gone. That's pretty final.

And so I think that lady justice is crying for consequences in order to meet balance. And that's all I have. I will be supporting this measure.

Yeah, I mean, respectfully, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding on what restorative justice means and who it's for. As was mentioned all day today, the victims are not just the people directly impacted, but everybody impacted around them who are looking for healing and accountability. Restoration is for them also.

Just want to reject a premise that I heard earlier on a separate Bill, this notion that you need to be locked up to get services and care because we've divested from institutions of care and well being in the community that the only place you can get substance abuse treatment and care is having been arrested or incarcerated. I think that is a fundamental problem with the investments we've made through the decades in response to this Bill.

The author chairs our emergency services and has a deep history in this work. In a lot of respect from me and many others, right now is a moment that calls for thoughtful solutions that intertwine holistic approaches. This is an opportunity to bring multiple people to a table to look at this at a bigger scale. It's the foundational type of thinking that we need in this problem. So thank you for bringing it forward. I'm happy to support you today.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else? You may close.

Thank you. With that, I strictly ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there a motion, second called roll.

On AB 474 by Limon Rodriguez. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis, aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan, aye. Lackey, aye. Ortega, aye. Santiago, aye. Zbur, aye.

That measure passes. We have Miss Soria. AB 675, Soria, item number 4.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Can I begin?

Yes. They're passing out some amendments because I think we need clarification on that. You can begin.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair and members. First and foremost, I want to thank the Chair for providing this forum to have an honest conversation about what we need to do together to ensure that we're addressing this crisis that is in front of us, which is the fentanyl crisis. I also want to thank the staff and the Chair for working with us on amendments. I believe that you guys all now have a copy of those. I am prepared to accept those amendments.

Could you read the one that we kept going back and forth back? Well, for people in the public, we've been going back and forth on what the amendments will be as recent as two hours ago. And so it's going to make sure we're all reading from the same script, which you all also in the interest of transparency because this literally just happened.

Okay, perfect. So do you want me to read the subsection that was added? Subsection B, which is highlighted in bold, that says where the substance possessed is one containing fentanyl or containing fentanyl analog, the person must have knowledge that that specific controlled substance possessed is fentanyl or a fentanyl analog. That was the language provided by your committee staff.

And the committee staff was concerned that the individual needed to know that they actually had fentanyl.

Thank you, Chair. AB 675 updates current law to prohibit possession of fentanyl and a loaded firearm. If we look at existing law, which you have in front of you, it clearly states that possession of any amount of a substance containing cocaine-based cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, or PCP while armed with an operable firearm that is loaded is a felony. While fentanyl is up to 50 times stronger than heroin, it is not clearly delineated in statute among the list of controlled substances for which position while armed with a loaded operable firearm is a felony. When the Health and Safety Code 11370.1 was written in 1996, fentanyl was not a problem. So no one knew that the word fentanyl needed to be included in the statue. Fast forward today, fentanyl poisoning is the number one killer for individual ages 18 to 45. Nationwide, over 150 people die every single day from fentanyl overdoses and poisonings as we've also heard today from many those that have testified.

In the three counties that I represent, which are Fresno, Madera, and Merced, there have been over 130 deaths linked to fentanyl in just 2021 alone, most of them being young people. In San Francisco, as you all know, just recently announced Governor Newsom has declared war on fentanyl and has called in the National Guard to crack down on the crime linked to the fentanyl crisis. And I quote, to hold the poison peddlers accountable.

That is what the governor said. AB 675 remedies the inconsistency in current law by adding fentanyl. By closing this loophole in our current law, the bill will hold accountable those that Governor Newsom has accurately described as poison peddlers. This would be a tool in the toolbox to the other solutions, as has been discussed in this committee and in other committees, including those that are public health solutions.

So this is not going to solve the entire problem, but it begins to help us address the issue that we are faced in our local communities. With me today to testify in support of AB 675 is Merced County District Attorney Nicole Silveira.

Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Nicole Silveira. I am the District Attorney in Merced County, California. I am here to support AB 675. I think you all are aware of the argument that allowing someone to have a controlled substance and a loaded, operable firearm creates a public safety risk. And that is true. And there's no reason that fentanyl should be treated differently than other drugs which are already codified in this law, especially given how dangerous this drug is. But I would ask you to also consider another effect that this law can have, and that is the pathway to treatment.

Last week, I sat down with the judge in charge of our collaborative courts in Merced County and our public defender, and I asked him why we were not accepting people who had misdemeanor convictions into our drug treatment or behavioral health treatment courts. The judge gave me a couple of reasons why. He said, one, the probation period is not long enough. One year under misdemeanors is not long enough for a significant treatment plan for someone who is suffering from a serious addiction.

He also said that there is no formal supervision or meaningful consequences on misdemeanor probation. When addicts are going through treatment, there will be relapses, there will be mistakes, and we need immediate consequences to redirect that behavior. You cannot get that with misdemeanor probation. I did read the statistic that said in 2020 that 54% of gun-related deaths were due to suicide.

If that is true, then this law would also help someone who is in a downward spiral suffering from drug addiction and depression, who had a loaded, operable firearm. I also hear a lot of rhetoric about criminalizing our drug addicted or mental health, those suffering from mental health problems. I would like us to remember that our justice system is punitive, but it is also rehabilitative, and we need to take advantage of that when we can.

This is not just a public safety crisis, it is a health crisis. It has brought too many tragedies to Merced County families. In the last two years, we have had 22 deaths two years in a row, and those are numbers that are starting to rival our murder rate. So we must all do what we can to stop this rise in fentanyl deaths and prioritize public safety. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support. Thank you to the author for addressing this important issue and thank you to the Chair for holding this hearing. The District Attorneys Association has a support position as to the bill in print which doesn't increase enhancements but closes a loophole that, as they both explained, excluded fentanyl from the list of drugs for which simultaneously carrying a loaded operatable firearm was in and of itself a separate crime. This bill fixes that loophole and recognizes that guns and drugs together is more dangerous than drugs alone. The District Attorneys Association therefore supports and urges your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Mr. Chair and members, Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association, in support. Thank you.

Laura Didier, mother of fentanyl poisoning victim. Zach Didier, in support.

Natalie Page, brother poisoned by fentanyl.

Chris Didier, father of fentanyl poisoning victim Zach Didier, in strong support.

Chair and Members Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Good afternoon, Matt Siverling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association, in support.

Pamela Smith, mother of Jackson Smith, who died of fentanyl, in strong support.

Good. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning or good afternoon. My name is Brendan Woods. I am a board Member of the California Public Defender Association, and I'm the chief public defender of Alameda County. And I am only one of two black chief public defenders in the entire State of California. I am in a respectful opposition of this Bill. I request that we not add another law that will increase disproportionately incarceration of black and brown people.

The law does not require that the individual even know that the firearm was operable and loaded. This could lead to someone who might be suffering from addiction. They might have knowledge of a pill that's in their house. They could be roommates with someone as a security guard who can own a gun legally, has it stored safely, and that will make them eligible to be convicted of this crime.

What you will get is a law that otherwise ensures that law abiding citizens, family Members, friends, neighbors, people who are addicted, will not be eligible for drug diversion. They will not even be eligible for county jail. They will go to prison for two, three, or four years. We've already discussed today that there are other solutions that we focus on improving services to addiction prevention, treatment and recovery support services, increasing the availability of overdose reversing drugs, supporting cutting edge research and treatment.

So I started my career as a public defender in the 1990's, during the height of the drug war. I've seen people suffering from addiction get sentenced to prison for selling one to two or possessing one to two cracks of cocaine. I've seen people suffering from poverty get sentenced to prison for selling one to two rocks of crack cocaine just to support their family. I've seen the expansion of jails and prisons and defunding of our human prison industrial complex.

And I've also seen the suffering of our black and brown communities have been depleted of their most valuable resource, human beings. We cannot incarcerate our way out of a public health crisis. I ask you not to repeat the mistakes of the past and vote no.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Glenn Bacchus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a policy group dedicated to racial and economic justice, based in Oakland. I'd like to remind the Committee that possession of a controlled substance, one that, you know what it is, is a misdemeanor if it's for personal use and it's legal to own a firearm.

I don't understand why we have a Bill or a law on the books now that says, I have a small amount of drugs, that's a misdemeanor, and I have a legal firearm, and now I have a felony that puts me in prison for four years. How does that make any sense? The law went into effect in 1989, signed by Deukmejian. It was amended in 96, signed by Pete Wilson. I don't think we should expand this section of law.

It doesn't make sense to turn personal use into a felony just because there's a gun. There's no weight threshold in this section. So we're not talking about stash houses or dealers. We're talking about one pill. There's not five pills or fifteen pills or twenty-five, one. There's no requirement that the person have the gun in their hand, that they brandish it, they use it inappropriately. No requirement that they have it on their person. It can be in their car, it can be in their house.

So literally, one pill in the bathroom, a gun in the closet, and you're looking at four years, in addition to any other crimes they've charged you with. So this is really about leverage during a plea deal. I've got you for misdemeanor drugs. I've got you for this, this, and this. Let's make a deal. By the way, the example of a drug in the bathroom, a gun in the closet, that was upheld by the California Supreme Court or appellate court. Excuse me.

And the circumstances was, the defendant came to the living room with his hands up. When the police came, they found a small amount of methamphetamine in his bathroom for personal use. And they found a gun in the closet, stored in a locked box. It was loaded in the sense the clip was full, the chamber wasn't, but it was in a locked box. But the cops could open it without a key.

Therefore, it was operable and within reach, according to the law that Deukmejian and Wilson gave us. So today we're discussing someone having a small amount of fentanyl for personal use, looking at four years, because they also have a gun in the house. Doesn't have to be a ghost gun, doesn't have to be an unregistered gun. It's a gun. So thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the signal that I was getting worked up and running on.

But as we know, after 25 years, there's no evidence that the existing law works to reduce gun violence or drugs. And there's plenty of evidence that we hurt families when we take their mom or dad out and put them in prison for a long time and then make the family send money to their loved ones to support them inside. It's a wreck for families and it's a wreck for communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to the Bill?

Lawrence Cox, legal services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None. Strong opposition.

Jeronimo Aguilar, policy analyst with legal services for Prisoners with Children, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender, in opposition.

Thank you.

Aimee Dunkle, Broken No More, in strong opposition.

... on behalf of Initiate Justice, in opposition.

April Grayson, policy associate with the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in strong opposition.

Alicia Benavides Lewis, on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance, in strong opposition.

Anne Irwin, Smart Justice California, in strong opposition.

Esteban Nunez, with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, Insight Garden Program and Social Change, in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Henry Ortiz, with legal services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None in opposition.

Thank you.

Carmen-Nicole Cox, ACLU Cal Action, in strong opposition.

Wesley Saver, HealthRIGHT 360, opposition.

Emily Wonder, on behalf of the Young Women's Freedom Center, in opposition.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

Phil Melendez, Smart Justice California, in opposition.

Sam Lewis, Executive Director of ARC, in opposition.

Richard London, staff Member of ARC in Sacramento, strongly opposed.

Leon Burns with Anti Recidivism Coalition. I oppose this Bill strongly. Thank you.

Charles Green, Arc I oppose this. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now bring it back to Committee Members. Any comments?

I'll keep it brief. Chair. Thank you. So, in respect for the opposition, we're not arguing what the law is already on the books for the author. If you could just maybe answer this, and I'm sorry I came in a little late, maybe you already did. But I believe this, just besides the amendments that were added, this is just adding fentanyl to the Bill, correct?

Yes. That's all we're doing.

Okay. We're probably going to be back here in 10 years from now adding a different drug that we have no idea that exists. I mean, it's probably going to be two years from now. We're constantly evolving. Drugs are changing. Some comments were made earlier in other bills that were being presented about the grams and stuff that go on with that? Well, the chemists know they can just change the molecular structure of the drug.

So that way we're constantly changing what we need to do on our end, and we're always behind. So I see where you're coming from, but I don't see quite the argument because we need to evolve with the drugs as well. And author, thank you for bringing this, and I will definitely be supporting this.

Mr. Bryant.

Part of the reason I'm struggling is grappling this question of whether we're expanding something that was already foundationally bad, but even more so, getting amendments, I don't know, eight minutes ago without a record from the chair with these amendments. I think this is a prime example for needing interim study, for needing more discussion as a courtesy to the author for the work that she has put in and the importance of this issue.

So my question, Mr. Chair, similar to the Bill earlier, is this a potential candidate for that kind of an option?

Yes.

I have concerns about expanding. So two things. One, appreciate that the author has worked so hard and has worked with the Committee. Obviously, we weren't involved with the staff because it was happening so quickly. And so I have a lot of concern about not being able to support a Bill that you've worked so hard and been working with the staff on. On the other hand, I am hearing things about the existing law that are a problem.

I generally don't have a problem moving fentanyl into categories with drugs that are considered the most harmful, because I think it is one of the most harmful drugs. But I also have real concerns about the fact that you can have a lawful gun and one pill and that the underlying issues of small amounts of cocaine and heroin possession with a gun, to me, it just seems like the underlying law is flawed as well.

I would hope that maybe the author would sort of take this as something and allow it to work on sort of fixing the underlying law and then moving fentanyl into it by narrowing the underlying law so that we don't have the issues that the Ella Baker Center has raised. So I would support that if the author would be willing to do that, because I do think that fentanyl should be categorized with all of the worst drugs on the laws.

But the underlying law, I think, is really flawed. So I won't be able to support the Bill today unless it was moved into sort of interim study.

A question to the chair, honestly, about this concept that you raised around interim study. So what does that mean for this moment and review of this Bill?

Its basically a holding place, and we can ask certain agencies to do reports, like the.

LAO or the California Research Bureau at RP.

We can make those requests based on.

Information that we learn in the recall.

Probably the swiftest, quickest way is forward to, I believe our colleague, Assembly Member Haney, is planning to have hearings on fentanyl in mid May. He will also have, who will be joined by the chair of health, chair of public safety, and then Mr. Haney, bringing in all experts on law enforcement, public health, medical field, criminal justice advocates, bringing them all together in that first meeting.

And we can study it there, talk about all the different permutations or ramifications, maybe even do like we're talking about discussing some solutions so that we can then move the Bill and maybe have another special. I'm probably talking ahead of people telling me how to do that, but then be able to move the Bill later.

So it would essentially be informational in

A very robust way as allowing...

But it makes it more expansive and gives you more time to ask more questions. But it also gives us another month or so to work through all the discussions that's coming out in this Committee and questions that Members have right now, where they may be a little reticent to vote on it now, but they might be more inclined to do it at a later date, not a later date, not fall. But maybe.

...

Well, okay, now I'm getting all different. So now I'm being told you have to get an amendment. Okay. No, we can figure it out. I think we can, because I've known we've wharfed things before for people who don't know what wharf means without reference to file. We've done that quite a bit before, and I would think the Members here wouldn't mind coming back to vote for this Bill or other bills if we're able to move things on. I think we'd be able to figure it out.

Mr. Ortega.

I'm a little frustrated. I've actually been talking to Assembly Member Soria about her. You know, we started out know, let's talk about amendments. I know she's been working really hard to put in these amendments to work with the Committee consultants, to work with some of us to try to get it to a good place. I understand that we just got the information eight minutes ago, which makes it difficult for many of you to make a decision, and even myself.

But as a Committee, we need to figure this out in terms of amendments when they come, how they come, because we can't continue to say, we'll work with you if you work with the recommended amendments and then not be able to move forward. I'm a little frustrated with this process, especially understanding how hard the author tried to work with us, but unfortunately, I won't be able to support your Bill today.

Yes.

For the opposition. Is there any other case that you can come up with that had some negative impacts with in regards to just that law? I know we're hung up on this in the bathroom, one pill, but that's one of many other cases. And we have a thing called spirit of the law and letter of the law, and I would hope that those judges would refer to that when that is being done.

So I feel bad for all my colleagues here because you presented one Bill or one case that had to do, and it sounds terrible. I agree, too. But that one case right now, we're debating on right now, and you're talking hundreds if not thousands of cases that we've been able to successfully prosecute people on.

And if I can. Unfortunately, the law in and of itself is probably flawed because we see this happening over and over again where someone is really faced with an addiction problem, but due to the fact there could be a gun in the house or located, that increases the penalty way beyond a factor that we think it should be.

So then that really, as Glenn says, coerces people into plea bargaining, and then when you eliminate the possibility of treatment, it's not getting to what we, I think, know we should be doing. Now, what is correct with regards to how we want to treat people suffering from addiction?

Okay, and I get your guys'point. I don't think we need to argue that law here. All we're doing is basically updating by adding fentanyl to the list of something that didn't exist when this law was originally made. So I don't know if that helps my colleagues out or not, but that's really all she's doing, is adding a simple one word, fentanyl. And obviously the amendments that were added.

And I'm sorry if I took some of your closing, but that's just something I wanted to make sure I shared. Thank you.

Well, I'll just say this. The good thing about this discussion, hopefully it shows the public how extremely difficult it is for these bills, but hopefully it also shows how we interact and actually have a debate. I'm sorry you have to suffer through the interaction, but I think it's good for the public to see that we're not just monolithic in our beliefs and that we actually think through these things in a deliberative fashion. So I think Ms. Bonter wanted to speak first.

Again, thank you to Mr. Alanis. I would like us to be able to consider this legislation, one within the broader, more robust conversation which we are already committed to having in May. I do have challenges with building, even if it's a word change with building on a law.

I want to give the author the opportunity to be able to go look at the baseline of that law and make sure that there is an opportunity to refine even more the underlying law that this is extending so that it can meet the intention of what the author is trying to achieve right now.

My hope is that we would be able to find a means to be able to do that without having to essentially potentially risk not having this Bill get the further opportunity to be reviewed and considered.

Mr. Zbur

Is there something that the author can do, proceed really today that keeps the Bill alive, but allows her to work on some of the issues, on the underlying law and get that through this year?

Okay. So what we've done in the past, and it depends on the, not to put you on the spot, but it depends on the author.

We've had authors, which the Republicans have stated over and over and others have stated over and over, that we've let out bills that may not comport with what we normally do, but we've done that because that author has made a commitment that if we're not able to come to some agreement with the Members here, the majority of the Members here, the Bill would stop and it wouldn't move forward. It wouldn't move to approach, wouldn't move to the floor. It just wouldn't move.

It wouldn't go to the other side, to the Senate. And this Committee had comfort that that Member would keep their word because I think part of the resistance, once it leaves this Committee, it's kind of out of our hands. And so it's your word. I'm not putting you on spot, but it's the word of the author that nothing will move, and that author usually gave it.

The other thing is, and I'm glad we're talking about, this is what I also said. All these bills, if they've gone to interim study, whether it was May, June, or the fall come, they're not going to be enacted until January 2024. Somehow that got mixed mess. Like we got to act now, it can't be acted upon right now, still got to go through here to the Senate, to the Governor getting signed. And if we approve something today, you're not going to lock somebody up today.

So that's a fallacy that has been irritating me to no end. If we did come January 1, if we had got everyone in agreement, we did urgency clause, we could get it done then, which is, guess what, the same time as if we had approved it now that when it would be enacted, and hopefully that permeates through everyone that we're not holding up anything. So if it dies, though, it could be problematic, then it means you got to wait until whenever we.

Hopefully Mr. Bryan has an answer. He's got that look. Yeah.

First, I mean, the reason this Committee is so important is because there has never been a Bill that was supported by Bryan and Lackey out of this Committee that didn't go to the Governor. That's how that works up here. Mr. Lackey knows that, too. So letting bills out together, letting bills out that we can feel confident are going to do good and not harm is important, which is why this has become such an important Committee. I think you have been messed up by process this year.

That is not your fault. From bills being held, bills being reheard, bills not having a recommendation, amendments coming out the last minute, all of these things are not your fault. Which is why I think deferring for interim study is fair and responsible so that we can get to a point where perhaps Mr. Lackey and I support something that we can both believe in.

I also can tell you, because this has been a very special process that I would say, and I don't want to speak for the chair, but I would bet that everybody on this Committee would be willing to suggest to leadership through whatever means or measures are necessary to make sure that you continue to move this forward, because I don't believe this is at your fault. This is a special hearing. This can be a special circumstance.

There is a major hearing that's going on by the Select Committee on fentanyl by Mr. Haney next month. There is work that we can do here, and I know that your heart and intentions are good. And so I don't want to see this die today, but I also cannot support something that was amended now 15 minutes ago that also doesn't have kind of the full review or recommendation from

The Committee.

Chair, if, you know, I appreciate everyone's comments and thank you, Assembly Member, just Brian, for your comments. I appreciate in terms of the process. The process is that we do have deadlines. And so, yeah, I got unfortunately stuck in this kind of different type of process. The fact is, I will say amendments, and we all know here in this room, the amendments, a lot of times come at the 11th hour. And that's the reality.

And my commitment, which is why I've been talking to you, Chairman, to work with you guys to figure out what would the Committee be Comfortable essentially with, or the Committee staff and you be comfortable with. And so that's why I took your guys' recommendation. I would like to continue in the process. But the fact is that even if it's interim study, unless there's like a sense of urgency or urgency clause, the Bill wouldn't be in the normal process. And so that's what I'm concerned with.

And so I'd like to have a vehicle, as Assembly Member Chavez Zbur mentioned, a vehicle to be able to continue to have this dialogue. Just two days ago, the Senate approved actually this same Bill with no amendments, with bipartisan support.

And I think that in that same vein, we are seeing our colleagues across the other side that have made a recognition that this is a critical issue and that we have to start somewhere in terms on the public safety piece. I support all the efforts that are happening alongside for the public health reasons that also exist. But I also believe that we need to have a fair shot in terms of the public safety conversation.

And so I would like to ask if you guys would allow me to attempt to move forward in the same process that everyone else has been given through this Committee prior to this hearing. And so that would be my request today. For all you.

Ms. Ortega

Hearing the author's comments about her willingness to move forward and work with us and recognizing our recent history in terms of supporting other bills that we might have continued questions about, I'm actually reconsidering my position and willing to, if the author is committed to working with this Committee and all of us moving forward.

Yes, you have my commitment.

Just so I'm clear that the earlier Bill that you mentioned was that the Jesse Gabriel enhancement Bill.

Only thing, I would add one more,

Yes.

Okay.

And Haney. And so I think part of that work with is if we don't come to some kind of understanding or resolution, that you would need to hold the bell. And I don't know if you're willing to do that. That's the other part of it that they all agree to.

Well, I'm willing to work with you guys, and I want to make sure that this Bill gets across both. So I'm willing to work with you guys through the process. And if it's something that we have to hold back, if we can't come to an agreement I'm willing to also do that.

Then I'm waiting for a motion with that understanding.

Call to roll on AB 675 by Senator Member Soria. The motion is do pass, as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Joan Sawyer, aye. Joan Sawyer, aye. Alanis, aye. Alanis, aye. Bonta, aye. Bonta aye. Bryan, not voting. Bryan, not voting. Lackey, aye. Lackey, aye. Ortega, aye. Ortega aye. Santiago, not voting. Santiago, not voting. Zabur, not voting. Zabur not voting.

That measure passes.

Thank you.

Item number five, AB 955. Petrie-Norris.

Whenever you're ready.

All right, Mr. Chair and Members. Let me begin, Mr. Chair, just for thanking you for convening today's hearing and bringing us together to discuss this incredibly important topic and to consider the bills that my colleagues and I have introduced to try to combat the fentanyl crisis. And as we have discussed today, fentanyl, the scourge of, is ravaging our communities and killing our kids. Fentanyl is one of the most dangerous and deadly substances in the world.

And in recent years, the total number of fentanyl deaths here in California has absolutely skyrocketed. Today and every day, 15 Californians, 15 Californians will die because of fentanyl poisoning. And I say fentanyl poisoning because I think, and I've listened to, obviously, all the discussion and debate that we've had here today, and I know we've had a lot of discussion about comparisons to our failed war on drugs.

And in my opinion, in my assessment, fentanyl is fundamentally different, because what we are talking about and what we are seeing in our communities are rarely overdosed deaths. More and more frequently, we are seeing people who are being poisoned. And two trends, two very disturbing trends, have really accelerated the danger of fentanyl in California, and frankly, I think, increased the urgency for our attention and response.

And those two trends are, number one, we are seeing drug traffickers abuse social media platforms to sell increasingly to our kids. So drug dealers do not need to stand on street corners or in deserted parking lots. Now they are connecting with young people, with teenagers, with pre teenagers, on platforms like Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp.

Actually, a recent example, in fact, is the former Executive Director of the San Jose Police Officers Association, who was the coordinator of a sophisticated fentanyl shipping and distribution network, actually using office computers to do that work and to traffic this poison to our kids. But the second scary trend to me, and it's terrifying to me as a mom, has really been the proliferation of counterfeit fentanyl. So drug traffickers are deceptively cutting counterfeit prescription medications like Xanax, oxycodone, Percocet with fentanyl.

And our kids are buying what they think are a Xanax, a Percocet, an oxy, and dying because of fentanyl poisoning. And as I've said to many of you, as a mom, this absolutely scares the hell out of me. And as a Legislator, I'm absolutely committed to pushing for action to combat this crisis. And we have also talked a lot today about the need for a comprehensive approach, and I certainly wholeheartedly agree with that. We absolutely need more investment in treatment, in education, in rehabilitation.

And I also think that where appropriate, we need to strengthen penalties. We need to hold traffickers who are murdering our children accountable, and we need to send a strong message that trafficking online, targeting children, will not be tolerated here in California. So with that, AB 955 was introduced to help combat, as I said, the dangerous and deadly proliferation of fentanyl sales online.

And what the Bill does is to align the penalties for online sales and distribution of fentanyl with penalties that already exist for intercounty sales and distribution of fentanyl. So what we're trying to do with this Bill is align penalties for trafficking in the virtual world with penalties that do exist already in the real world. And pleased to be joined today by Chris Didier, who is the Executive Director of Void, and by Jonathan Feldman, who is here with the California Police Chiefs Association to provide additional testimony.

Thank you. And you have five minutes, and you divide it anyway the two of you want to.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Committee Members, my name is Chris Didier. I am a Member of Void, and I'm very grateful to have the opportunity to speak with you today. This is my son, Zach. 28 months ago today, Zach's mother, Laura, who's with us here today, and I lost our youngest child from illicit fentanyl poisoning. Our story is very personal, and it cuts to the very core. As a high school senior, Zach was incredibly successful in all aspects of life.

A straight a student, a respected athlete, active in scouting, theater, and community service. Three months after Zach died, his mother and I opened his acceptance letters into five ucs, including UCLA. We never got to see Zach celebrate the joys of acceptance into UCS. And instead of visiting Zach in college, we have to visit him at a cemetery here in Sacramento. What adds to our confusion is that Zach had no known history of substance use.

Our first responders never found products or paraphernalia in his possession or his bedroom. Two months before Zach died, the dealer was convicted of different drug offenses and sentenced to only five years of probation with no jail time. Zach was sold a fake pill from a stranger through Snapchat. It was made of illicit fentanyl and disguised as Percocet. Unregulated designs of social media make it rife for dangerous content and bolsters nefarious drug activity by dealers. So let's get this straight.

These dealers are illegally purchasing counterfeit pills from an illegal source. They illegally possess these pills not knowing where they actually came from. They wrongfully claim that these were harmless prescription pills. These dealers are not doctors, they're not pharmacists, and they are willingly and intentionally exploiting social media. There needs to be appropriate accountability to those who pedal poison for profit. Someone died seven minutes ago from illicit fentanyl in our country.

So my simple question to the Committee is this, what does it take to hold a dealer accountable who profits on the lives of our children? Your children? Really think about it. Please support AB 8955. Thank you for your consideration and your. I vote.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in strong support. As the author and the witnesses said. I mean, we're talking about dealers using social media platforms, exposing children, marketing the children. I have two daughters. These stories break my heart and scares the hell out of me. And that's one of the reasons we're in such strong support of this particular Bill, because it's really focusing on those that are going after the most vulnerable, kids who don't know better.

As we've talked about in this Committee, prefrontal cortex development. They don't understand the consequences of the decisions that they're making. That's why the focus of this Bill is so important. And I want to say something more generally. I've been in this Committee for the better part of a decade. I'm empathetic and I understand, and so do the police chiefs, the arguments about not going back to the war on drugs. That effort was failed. But this is not the 1980s. It's not the 1990s.

It's not even the early 2000s. It's 2023. For a decade now, we have been passing reforms on early release, protecting racial bias in our court system, recidivism efforts, rehabilitation efforts in our jails and our prison systems. Anybody that goes into the system now, they're going to serve half their time through good conduct credit. They're going to have opportunities for rehabilitation, education programs, substance abuse, drug counseling. We are not just trying to punish individuals for harming our communities. We're trying to rehabilitate them. That's our efforts here.

So I understand increasing sentences is not the direction that this Committee wants to go, but I just want you all to understand it's not just about punishing and locking people up. This is about changing their behavior. And that's the effort that we've all undertaken over all of these years to make that difference and make that change. And I read the analysis has a lot of different studies that show longer sentences don't work. But they're looking at data from other states nationwide.

They're not looking at what we're doing here today in California. I don't agree with those studies and those just being the basis in every argument that we have about increased sentences, that they don't work. Right. Just to say that longer sentences don't work, doesn't understand the nuances of it. And if you actually read those studies, they actually pick apart a lot of what they say. It doesn't work in certain circumstances. It doesn't work under certain crimes. I agree.

Just locking them up and throwing away the key as a solution is not going to happen, and it's not going to work, and it's not what we're asking for.

But to use that as an excuse every single time to just say we can't increase sentences, I think, again, doesn't understand the nuances of what we're doing in California now, how things have changed up to this point, thanks to some of the great work that's been done here in this Committee and through the partnership, even with the Police Chiefs Association.

So when a Bill like this that comes forward that's really focusing on those that are harming our children, I just really hope that we think of all of that context and can move something like this forward. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any others in support?

Mr. Chair and Members, Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members Carl London on behalf of Crime Victims United, in support.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy for the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Elisa Arcidiacono with the League of California Cities, in support.

Morgan Geyer, Placer County District Attorney, in support.

Pamela Smith, mother of Jackson Smith, who died of fentanyl, in strong support.

Stephanie Herrera, ENR project, in support.

Tawny Arnes, mom of Josh Arnes, 19 year old this is what it looks like to be on life support from fentanyl. In support.

Kelly Amru, I support my son Bryan, lost his life three months ago to fentanyl poisoning.

Tony Arnes father of Joshua, who died September 30th, 2021 on my living room floor from fentanyl.

Thank you. Is there anyone in opposition?

Watch yourself.

You have five minutes, you can break it up any way you want.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Aimee Dunkel. Sadly, I'm extremely familiar with the pain in this room. Having lost my own 20 year old son, Ben, to an overdose in his memory, I created the solace foundation of Orange County an unfunded naloxone distribution program that has recorded over 2500 overdose reversals. I am also on the board of Broken No More, a California nonprofit with over 4000 Members, mostly parents who have lost a child like me. We strongly oppose AB 955.

AB 955 will do nothing to stop young people from purchasing pills that contain fentanyl from social media. If you arrest someone for selling online, that just means more customers for someone else. And there will always be someone else. Decades of observation have demonstrated that if you arrest someone for selling drugs, they are quickly replaced. Research has shown that punitive drug laws such as AB 955 do not decrease drug use, drug sales, or overdose deaths.

If the goal is to save lives, we must discard our belief that more punishment is the answer and invest in interventions that will save the lives of these young adults. No one wants to see young people use drugs, but some will. Some will buy pills that may contain a lethal dose of fentanyl. How can we keep them safe? Naloxone should be in every home where young people are present in case of an overdose.

Young people should be informed about the never use alone hotline, where the person receiving the call is interested only in the safety of the person calling and can intervene in the case of an overdose. Young people should be provided with fentanyl test strips and taught how to properly test their pills. A positive test will inform them that the pill contains fentanyl and should be discarded. Unlike AB 955, if these interventions are used, they will save lives.

Every dollar spent on the ineffective strategies of arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning is a dollar not spent on harm reduction interventions and science based treatments that have been proven to save lives. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Wesley Saver and I am the Director of public policy and affairs for Health Right 360.

On behalf of the organization, we oppose Assembly Bill 955. As a substance use treatment provider, as a former EMT, as someone whose career has been founded in working with youth of all backgrounds and stages of development, and as an older brother of someone whose life was touched by overdose, I speak with intimate knowledge of the persistent and sometimes destructive challenges of drug use that confront our children, loved ones, and the community. These are sensitive issues and indeed, personal to us all.

And I appreciate the gentleman sharing Zach's memory and all of the other loved ones who've shared theirs. But we know the counterproductive harms of this proposal and this Bill and similar sentencing enhancements are the same regressive strategies that have been tried, consistently failed, and exacerbate overdose mortalities.

We cannot interdict or incarcerate our way out of the overdose crisis, and despite the author's noble intent, we strongly believe that this Bill will not have any deterrent effect on the sale or availability of drugs through social media platforms, and it does not offer any additional services to our youth.

From sentencing enhancement to sending in the National Guard, enforcement never dissuades demand AB 955 would subject a person to lengthy periods of incarceration and increase disparate racial outcomes in public health and sentencing without addressing any root causes of the problem. To address substance use disorder and overdose mortality, a robust public health infrastructure and humane engagement is the solution.

This includes readily available drug adulterant testing, broad access to overdose reversal medication, harm reduction practices such as safer supply and supervised consumption, and a full continuum of Low threshold voluntary treatment options. As Assembly Member Bonta and Brian mentioned, compare the budgets of these dignified, compassionate and stigma free programs with those of the ineffective and expensive criminal legal strategies. You cannot say something does not work when it has never been fully implemented or funded with Fidelity.

AB 955 does nothing to prevent youth and others from being targeted with social media content that facilitates the purchase of drugs. It instead will lead to further harm as people will be afraid to ask for support due to fear of prosecution. Isolation is well known to be a consistent driving factor in overdose and this Bill does not hold our children close. Rather, it will further marginalize people who use drugs, especially younger people who may use in secrecy and shame. Without being fully informed.

AB 955 is without an evidence base and puts up further barriers and penalties that raise the risk of overdose. Knowing this, we oppose AB 955 and we respectfully urge you to vote no in this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in opposition name and organization, please.

Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco public defender in strong opposition.

Policy analyst with legal services for prisoners with children here. Also on behalf of all of us. Are all in strong opposition. Thank you.

Danica Rodarm. On behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

David Goodman Mesa physician, researcher and in opposition.

Beck Selabaker Center for Human Rights and in opposition.

Alicia Benavides Lewis, on behalf of the following organizations, Drug Policy Alliance, Yuba Harm Reduction Collective, Dignity and Power Now, Harm Reduction Institute, Carefirst California, A New Path, National Harm Reduction coalition, treatment on Demand Coalition, San Francisco and Reach LA. Thank you.

Jeanette Sanit Patin, on behalf of the following organizations, Biennestad Human Services Center for Living and Learning, face to face, Sonoma County AIDS Network, Berkeley Needle Exchange, emergency distribution or need my Second Chance from Long Beach, face to face any positive change incorporated and San Francisco Glide center. Thank you.

April Grayson, Assist the Word Freedom Coalition, in opposition to this Bill.

Emily Wonder, on behalf of the Young Women's Freedom center, in opposition, Anne Irwin, Smart Justice California. In opposition. Good afternoon.

Carmen Nicole Cox, ACLU, Cal Action in opposition.

Good afternoon. Espan Nunez with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, Insight Garden Program and Social Change and in opposition.

Thank you. Charles Green, ARC. I oppose this. Thank you. Sean Gage, Anti Recidivism Coalition, strongly opposed. Sam Lewis, Executive Director of ARC, Anti Recidivism Coalition, strongly in opposition. Paul Martinez, part of ARC, I oppose. Willie woods, anti coalition. Anti Resilient Coalition, strongly oppose.

Ricardo London, from ARC. I strongly oppose this. Beyond Burns. I'm with ARC and I oppose this. My name is Brian Hernandez. I'm with ARC and I strongly oppose. My name is Johnny Chathavong. I'm with the Anti Recidivism Coalition and I also oppose this Bill. My name is Jamie Carper.

I'm a Member of anti recidivism coalition.

And I oppose the Bill.

Tanisha Cannon, legal services for prisoners with children and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hello, I'm Candice Lewis with ARC and I oppose this Bill.

Mcduffie, Anti Recidivism Coalition, and I oppose this Bill. Henry Ortiz, all of us for none in legal services for prisoners for children. I oppose this Bill and I make. A motion for lunch sometime soon.

I second that. Second.

I'm Christina Robinson. I'm with all of us or none. And community healers, and I oppose this Bill as well. Thank you.

My name is Gary Burton. I'm a life coach for the antiracism Coalition. I oppose Assembly Bill 955.

My name is Jack Castello and I'm a Member of ARC and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Phil Melendez, with Smart Justice California in opposition with that. We'll now bring it to Committee. Mr. Laffey?

Yeah. I am completely in support of this Bill, but I did have a question about the definition of social media platform and the criteria that you have designated at 30 million active monthly users and wondered what the justification for that metric is.

And I know there was a proposed amendment from your consultant to modify that section to read, to remove that threshold. And it now reads, for the purposes of this section, social media platform has the same meaning as in paragraph three of subdivision a of Section 22945 of the business and professions code. So we have linked it to an existing definition of social media platform.

Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions?

Did I move it? I guess I moved it. We'll get ahead of it. I want to thank the author for bringing this up. As you guys all know out there, social media and Facebook, everything else, it's in every one of our children's hands for the most part. And so these dealers have access to all of them. And I think this helps address that. I have a question for Zach's father. The reasons that the opposition were giving, do you feel that maybe that would have helped Zach?

Would he still be here today?

Thank you for that. I actually wrote those notes down. I think most youth that I know, I was a head coach for Zach's team for six years. I know these men very well. They want to do the right thing. They're smart, they're capable, and if they're interested in exploring life's new boundaries. What's this beer like? What's this vape like? What's this edible like? They're likely not going to call or go to a safe injection site, having no history.

They're going to just think, well, I'm told this is harmless. What's this beer really like? Or what's this product like? And if they're told it's harmless and not lethal, I really don't see how that could help. I do want to respect their position with those who are already going down that slippery slope of addiction, depending on the product, there needs to be fair and appropriate treatment offered to them. I think that's a demographic that's important.

But a new category of victim has emerged where a person literally can tiptoe one time down that slippery slope and it lights out. That's a different landscape. When we grew up. When we grew up, the worst thing was we'd get nauseous, we'd probably have a hangover. We'd be embarrassed. But now it's just lights out. The other point to that is the dealer had already been convicted here in Sacramento county.

Two months later, he met Zach and Zach's friends and was still doing business trying to pedal poison for profit. He was arrested a month later in our county and went out on bail that day. A month later, he was arrested again, third time in eight months, and had in possession other controlled substances, firearms and ammunition he wasn't allowed to have, and 40 Xanax bars. So dealers aren't going to call a place to help them with their desire to make money.

So as good as those programs are for a certain demographic, it doesn't address the new category victim, and it doesn't really appropriately address those who are intentionally wanting to pedal poison so they can make money. I hope that answers yes, it did.

Thank you. And for the opposition, either one of you, if you guys can answer this, have either one of you maybe introduced a Bill that would address any of the programs that you guys brought up today?

I don't understand your question.

So you both had reasons for opposing this Bill as far as having programs more for our kids and for dealers or whoever else. Have you guys approached any Assembly Members with any of those ideas to present as a Bill?

Yes, certainly. There was SB 57 last year, which actually the Legislature support, and we're very grateful for those, unfortunately, vetoed by the Governor, which would have allowed for pilot programs of overdose prevention programs in San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles. And. And the epidemics. The $61 million budget requests that Assembly Member Bonta referenced is another one of those programs as well. Yes. Thank you.

And so that didn't go through, though.

That is still in the process, although I know this is not a fiscal Committee.

Got you. Thank you. So I have an issue, ma'am, with all due respect, with your child as well. I have hundreds of parents in my district who have also lost their children and would disagree with this Bill would do nothing. We need to do something. We need to at least act somehow.

I'm happy to hear that you guys are going on reaching out and doing supportive stuff, but we also need to work on, as the chair, sorry, as the author brought up, that we need to have consequences.

Can I respond? Yes, please. So we are in a world of hurt. We all recognize that we're in the worst drug supply in US history. Of course we have to do something, but we have to deal with where we're at right now. And we can't pretend that we're going to arrest our way out of this.

The way move forward is to educate and we have to swim upstream and we have to educate children that whenever they purchase an illicit substance, whether it's online or on the street, and it is an illicit substance, any pill that you buy that is not prescribed to you, you are literally playing Russian roulette. And that is where we're at and that's where we must begin. And it begins with education.

I don't think there's anybody here that would disagree with the education portion, and I don't either. But I think we can attack this on two different fronts, the education and the consequences as well. And so again, just saying that this does nothing, it echoes in my head right now that this does do something. And I think we do need to do something. And I do agree with you. Educating is great and it is, but we also have to have the consequences that come and.

I'm sorry, author. Go ahead.

Okay, thank you. I was just going to say that I absolutely support everything that you said. And alongside this Bill we have been pushing for in last year's budget for the funding to create the fentanyl task force, we are rolling out a statewide education and awareness campaign, leveraging the DEA's one pill can kill program. And I think the reality in my view, is that we need more and better education. We need more and better rehabilitation and treatment.

And I do think we need more and better enforcement, which I think is certainly the place where we. But we agree on a lot. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms. Bonta.

I really wish that the witness for the opposition had not brought into this particular conversation, a conversation about the war on drugs and this being different and this being a different time and that we know now that additional enhancements in time, in jail, all of that for me felt like really not facing the reality.

I think in this very same room we on budget sub five heard from a mother who lost her son because he is one of the over 50% of people who entered into our carceral system for a low level crime, essentially, and ended up dying from substance abuse. So there are things happening in our carceral system right now that are absolutely unacceptable and that is the plain hard truth of what happens right now.

So for me, it is incredibly important that we look very hard about what we're doing when we're increasing punishment or enhancements that will put people into prison where we know they are not going to get, based on how our carceral system is run right now, going to have the opportunity to rehabilitate and get out alive. That is the reality right now.

So within the context, I'm going to take that whole thing aside just as a side note and really speak to the author right now around this proposal and this Bill that you have moving forward. We've spent a lot of time talking as mothers about what it means to have me with my 14 and 17 year old and 23 year old right in the pocket of being people who have friends or could fall victim to potentially purchasing something through Snapchat or anything.

This is the demographic that we are talking about right now. And I'm so incredibly sorry, and I've heard your story and your son's story so many times, and I know that this is incredibly hard for you to have to keep on coming here and sharing his story. And I just want to acknowledge that as well.

And I appreciate you for doing that because I know that you are here to try to help to seek justice for your son in a pathway forward so that this doesn't happen to any more children. I know that the challenge for me with this legislation, and I've shared this with you, is that it falls on the side of not necessarily making sure that we have an opportunity to address the larger problem of even how platforms are used to traffic. Let's go after that.

I know that you have a legislation right now moving forward that would actually get at that. And that feels to me like where we need to take some of the solutions that are crime based in order to be able to solve the incredible amount of fentanyl that is out there on our streets.

And I'm incredibly supportive of making sure that we are taking these drugs off our streets, that we are focusing on the massive distribution and the distributors, which I include the platforms, who are not doing their job in creating an opportunity to have fewer, easier ways for this to pass into our kids hands. They do it already in the instance of child pornography, that is not the case right now, and we need to hold them to account.

And I am with you every single step of the way on that. I cannot be with you today, as I've shared, because I don't think that this necessarily addresses anything but making sure that we have more kids, not off of the streets, but it's through interactive and social media being put into a system that I know is going to potentially kill them. And that's not okay for me either. So for those reasons, again, maybe third time is a chime here.