Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We'll convene the Senate Public Safety Committee in 30 seconds. Good morning. The Senate Committee on Public Safety is now called to order. I am Senator Jesse Arreguín, the chair of the committee. We do not yet have a quorum but we will commence as a subcommittee as members arrive so we can begin our bill presentations. I'd like to welcome all to the State Capitol and to our committee hearing.

I just want to make an announcement about the public comment process for this hearing. For each bill, we will take two principal witnesses in support of the bill that are identified by the bill sponsor and two principal witnesses in opposition.

In order to be a principal witness, you will had to have filed a letter of opposition with the committee in advance of this hearing, after which time we will allow members of the public to come forward and indicate their support for the bill, but you are limited only to say your name, your organization or where you're from, and whether you support or oppose the bill.

We will not take any other comments. We appreciate you being here. We welcome comment also through written comment. We do review all the written comments, and thank you for participating in today's hearings.

With that, we will proceed with the first bill: File Item 1, Senate Bill 99 by Senator Blakespear. Good morning. And Senator, if you have any witnesses-- okay, great. And whenever you're ready, you may proceed.

Okay, thank you very much. Chair. Good morning, everybody. I'm happy to be here today. I'm the author of SB 99, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense, and gladly accept the committee's amendments that will be taken when the bill is heard in Judiciary this afternoon.

SB 99 would improve coordination between military and civilian law enforcement agencies to expand protections for survivors of domestic violence. Military protective orders, which are also called MPOs, are similar to civil restraining orders and provide protection on and off base. But presently, there are gaps in coverage and understanding between civil and military authorities.

For example, after a survivor with a military protective order moved off base, that person was stalked by their abuser. They called 911. But the local police declined to act, believing the MPO was only enforceable on base. There are some key differences between military protective orders and restraining orders.

They are issued by a commander, not a court, and do not require advance notice to be given to the subject. Nor is there an opportunity for the alleged abuser to be heard. Because of the lack of due process protections. MPOs cannot be enforced by civilian law enforcement.

And the Department of Defense instructs commanders to encourage the protected person of the benefits in also seeking A civil restraining order. Despite MPOs applying off base, civilian law enforcement cannot enforce them, which leaves survivors unprotected.

This is particularly concerning given the severe shortage of on base housing, where in my district, which covers Camp Pendleton, there is a waiting list of up to 16 months for on base housing. This bill bridges the gap between military and civilian systems in four key ways.

Existing law already requires courts to search for existing warrants whether the person has firearms or has prior restraining orders before issuing or denying a restraining order. SB 99 adds to that list, requiring a court to search the National Crime Information center system to determine whether the subject has a current MPO.

Second, the bill also explicitly allows military protective orders involving the same parties to be admissible evidence for obtaining a restraining order. Third, it requires civilian law enforcement officers to notify military law enforcement if they have reason to believe that an MPO has been violated.

And finally, it allows law enforcement agencies to enter an MOU with the military, outlining roles and responsibilities regarding communicating and responding to potential violations of civil restraining orders on base and MPOS off base. SB 99 ensures domestic violence survivors are not left unprotected simply because the abuse crosses jurisdictional lines.

With me today in support I have Kelly Douglas on behalf of the Department of Defense.

Thank you. Senator, good morning. You'll have two minutes to address the Committee on the bill.

Good morning, Chair Arreguin and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelly Mae Douglas and I work for the Defense State Liaison Office, which operates under the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness on behalf of Military Family Station in California.

I am grateful for the opportunity to provide comments in strong support of the policy changes reflected within SB 99. Currently, nine states have enacted legislation to implement similar policy initiatives, and five states, including California, are currently considering related initiatives. Addressing this critical policy in California is of great significance to the Department and the military services.

With over 238,000 active duty National Guard and Reserve military Members in the state and nearly 89,000 spouses of military Members stationed here. Instances of harmful behavior often involve personnel who interact with both civilian and military. Within civilian and military jurisdictions and without coordinated communications, violations can go unreported and unaddressed, risking further harm to victims.

Through enactment of interpersonal violence policies such as SB 99 that complement federal efforts, California can empower victims, deter offenders, and create an environment for military families that ensures their well being and readiness. Although MPOs offer unique benefits for victims seeking immediate relief, we understand the concerns about their limitations.

We are not asking that courts be required to issue a TRO or a temporary restraining order solely based on the existence of an MPO. However, we believe that having that knowledge of potential existence of an MPO can provide valuable information regarding a potential pattern of abuse to inform decision making on a case by case basis.

We've also heard of several instances in which victims, as the Senator mentioned, believe that they were protected from violence from a with the MPO when an MPO is issued on their behalf, even if they are not on base.

Again, while this bill would not provide automatic protection from harm when a victim is off base, we believe that adding a notification requirement ensures that military authorities are made aware of violence that has continued off base despite an MPO, so that victims have an added layer of protection no matter where they are.

Finally, we've also heard from our Family Advocacy Program office offices that in some highly military impacted locations there's little to no coordination or communication with local law enforcement.

Our hope is that this bill will encourage local law enforcement to develop memorandum of understanding with their military counterparts, ensuring ongoing and regular communication and improving coordinated responses to protect victims.

In conclusion, this common sense policy addressed within SB 99 offers a framework for the state and the military installations within the state to work together to protect victims of interpersonal violence no matter where they live, work, attend school or conduct their daily living activities by ensuring that patterns of abusive behaviors are considered by the courts and by improving communication lines between civilian and military law enforcement.

With that, we thank the Committee thank you Chair for considering this important legislation and are especially grateful for the tremendous efforts California has historically made in support of our military families. And we also want to thank Senator Blakespear for her continued steadfast advocacy and support for military families.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Before we take any MeToo testimony for those in support of the bill, I just want to summarize the amendments which we were not able to finalize for this Committee but will be taken in Judiciary with this bill still referred.

Removing the probable cause standard and instead requiring that an officer responding to a domestic violence incident must notify a local law enforcement agency that entered a military protective order that the person is violating the civil protective order may be in violation of a military protective order Removing county as a qualifier for a local law enforcement agency so that all local law enforcement agencies may enter into MOUs with the military.

Just to clarify that whether you're county or city, that you're able to also enter into an MOU and other minor conforming changes. So those amendments will be taken in the Judiciary Committee if this bill moves out where it will be heard next.

So with that, I invite any Members of the public who wish to express support for Senate Bill 99. If you'd like to come forward and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association. We represent federal peace officers as well as state and local, and we support the bill. Sorry we didn't get a letter in on time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 99? Seeing no other testimony, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Hope everyone had a nice holiday. George Parenthew, on behalf of ACLU California Action, I'd like to thank the author, her staff and the Committee for working on the most recent set of amendments. We definitely think they moved the bill in the right direction.

However, we remain opposed unless amended, due to fundamental due process concerns around military protective orders. As acknowledged by the author, the Battered Women's Justice Project, this committee's analysis, and the Senate Judiciary Analysis, Military protective orders are issued with little to no due process for the subject of the order.

The decision to impose an MPO is made by a commanding officer, not a judge, and the decision may be made without notice to the subject and without opportunity for the subject to present evidence against the MPO.

Furthermore, as noted in this committee's analysis, MPOs do not satisfy the requirements under federal law to enjoy full faith and credit in our courts. Likewise, as noted in the Senate Judiciary Analysis, MPOs do not satisfy the requirements under state law to enjoy recognition in our courts. This is due to the lack of due process.

We should not confound these concerns by telling our courts to weigh them in state proceedings. We recognize the need to continue to find ways to address domestic violence, but we must do so in balance with due process. For these reasons, we remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in the hearing room who would like to express opposition to SB 99? If so, please approach the microphone. Okay. Seeing no one else, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero, thank you very much.

Mr. Chair. This is to. This is in regards to the military. Real familiar with how the system works, except for in state court. In our county courts, when there is an accusation of spousal abuse, where there has.

Where there are no injuries, there's periodically, depending on the year, been legislation that allows a diversion program, which means that the court suspends Any, any process of the court and sends the accused to a counseling program to have them start working on whatever the perceived issues might be that cause them to get involved in violence.

And the reason I bring that up is because the military solution is to not spend a lot of time on due process.

It's to get control of the situation because the military gets to do whatever they want on the base and the commander has an interest, incentive and obligation really under the military to make sure that crimes are not committed while on base.

And so I'm wondering if there's a system where that, that option is available to the commander that gives the kind of flexibility we'd like. I mean, I think the bill, I agree with the ACLU moved in the right direction. I was concerned with starting to set standards that say it's automatic.

And I think the way it's been worded, the court may consider, which is much, much different standard. So is there that opportunity so that at some point.

And so let me preface it by saying I did criminal defense work and so the number of times that a couple would come in to see me because one of them, and it could be either one, was accused of a crime was very high.

And both of them wanted a resolution that didn't involve jail time or a criminal conviction and both of them wanted to work on their relationship. And. And so diversion was one of those things that provided that outlet.

Thank you for the question, Senator. And yes. So you are accurate in that, you know, obviously the military is a unique organization and safety and national security is the primary concern. Right. As far as the way that the military commanders make decisions, it's framed within that context. With that said, there are.

So the way that commanders are given the authority to issue military protective orders, it does. There's a lot of flexibility in it. It's really, it's kind of unique in that they have a lot of discretion as far as consequences or recommendations that they might make.

With that said, I just wanted to highlight that we do have a very strong program called the Family Advocacy Program, and they're very much involved with all of any family related domestic violence or child abuse issues. So we do have wraparound services that go in to support the family, but it just depends on what the situation was.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that's particularly in family law issues or in family issues. The most intense relationships are when you live together and you love each other and then you don't anymore when things can happen.

But I want to make sure that we're being as Fair as possible, and there's the opportunity to contest things if that's necessary, but also to protect the family Members that may have been assaulted or threatened. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Vice Chair Seyarto.

I didn't have a comment before, but now I do. You know, we're talking about protective orders. Basically, it says, you know what, you cannot go near this person for now, and then we'll sort it out.

And, you know, to me, whether it's, you know, your restraining order or a protective order, whatever side it's on, the main goal is, is to stop the potential for violence immediately, and then you can sort out all of the rest of this stuff.

So this bill makes sense to me in protecting the people that have the potential for violence out there against them, and the person that is seen as the person that might commit the violence has the opportunity after that. It's not like they're putting them in jail or anything.

They're just giving them, saying, you can't go near this person for now. So, you know, I understand the ACLU is protective of that, but they're not going to jail. Their freedoms are not being restricted other than you can't go near the person that you just threatened.

So when it really boils down to it, we're trying to help people stay separated so it doesn't turn into something where they will go to jail eventually. So this, this makes a lot of sense. And so with that, did you already move the bill? If you haven't moved?

1234. Oh, shoot. All right. I will recognize your motion. All right, thank you. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? I'll turn it back over to you, Senator close on the bill.

Okay, thank you. Well, I appreciate the engagement from the Members of the Committee on the bill and your commentary today. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us today. Once we establish a quorum, we'll entertain the vice Chair's motion and once again do pass to the Judiciary Committee. Amendments will be taken in the Judiciary Committee.

In addition, the amendment and Judiciary Committee amends Section 2 of the bill to authorize the court to consider rather than have it be automatic. So with that, we'll proceed now to file item two, which is Senate Bill 758 by Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and a special thank you to Chief Counsel Ms. Jordan for your assistance on this bill, making it, I think, a better bill. With your permission, Mr. Chair, and acknowledging today as a very complicated day in the State Senate, Senate Elections Committee is waiting for me both to cast votes as well as to present the last bill there.

So with your indulgence, what I'd like to do is I'd like to present, then leave, and then come back so that if there're questions of me, for my close, and so forth. If that works for you, Mr. Chair, I'd like your permission to do so.

I'm glad to hear you're going to come back because we need-- I thought you were going to say present, leave, and then see you later, and pass my bill.

No, I would not abandon the bill, nor you. So, all right. All right.

Fine.

Knowing that you have to be in multiple places at once, without objection, we'll proceed in that way.

All right. So with your permission, I'll begin. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. We're going to be accepting the amendments that you and I have discussed, Mr. Chair, and worked out with your chief counsel. Those amendments now make the sale and distribution of products with unnatural levels of 7-hydroxylmitragynine, 7OH, a misdemeanor.

The amendments also clarify which retailer types are prohibited from selling nitrous oxide. This clarification ensures that nitrous oxide can still be sold for medicinal and culinary purposes, such as for whipped cream, but not for recreational purposes. I note that there are some folks concerned about-- I'm a fan of whipped cream.

I don't want to ban whipped cream here in California, and so there is an exception so that whipped cream can continue to exist. For the purpose of SB 758, the purpose is to restrict the sale of these dangerous drugs.

The easy access point of nitrous oxide at smoke shops and convenience stores has led to a rise in the harmful misuse over the last decade. Recreational inhalation of nitrous oxide can cause long-term neurologic impacts, paralysis, and even death.

Similarly, products containing higher concentrations of 7OH than is naturally occurring in the kratom plant are being sold at gas stations and smoke shops, and they've earned the appellation as gas station heroin. These products are not FDA approved and have raised alarms by an increase in poison control calls.

With me here to testify are the City of Ukiah Council Member Mari Rodin, and Ryan Sherman of the California Narcotics Association. Thank you very much, and thank you to both of you. I will return. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Before we hear from the witnesses, we do have a quorum. If the committee assistant can please call the roll?

[Roll call].

Okay, thank you. Welcome. You each have two minutes to address the committee on SB 758. Whoever would like to proceed.

Good morning. My name is Mari Rodin, city council member from the City of Ukiah. I'm here representing the League of California Cities, a co-sponsor of the bill. As is true nationwide and in California, nitrous oxide abuse is rampant in Mendocino County, where I'm from. Empty whippet canisters litter our exquisite parks and open spaces, and youth as young as middle school age are experimenting with this inexpensive, ubiquitous poison.

Companies using alluring advertising and bright colors attract youth buyers. And it's all currently legal as long as everyone pretends that the product is designed to be used for culinary purposes. Everyone's in on the joke, with names like I found online yesterday, Hippie, Whippy, Breaking Bad, and Whip-it. There's even Monster Gas, which comes in mango and tropical fruit flavors and is available in gasoline container sizes like this.

A local ER doc and former public health officer told me the other day that these gasoline container size quantities are available right now in our local gas stations and convenience stores. This doctor also told me about a young man who came to the ER with half a face.

He had blacked out from inhaling a whippet and he fell into a campfire. Three youth in the rural, predominantly Native American community of Covelo lost three young men recently--I think it's in the last year or two--when the driver of a vehicle who was high passed out and crashed into a pole.

But these are just the most tragic cases. There are many, many others. The availability of nitrous oxide is a scourge on our community and on California. Shame on us for taking this long to protect our kids. I hope you'll take the kind of action we took in my City of Ukiah in 2022.

A youth leadership coalition, along with the doctor I mentioned above, brought this-- informed us about this horrific and devastating problem and requested we take action. We are proud to be among about 20 cities that have passed ordinances prohibiting the sale of nitrous oxide in places that also sell tobacco.

We are expecting the County of Mendocino to pass a similar ordinance this year, but that won't be necessary if you move this important bill out of committee. Please do the right thing for the future of our kids and our great State of California and support SB 758. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers' Association. I'm a proud co-sponsor of the bill, 758, and we're thankful to the committee and staff for the amendments and all the work that they've done on this bill. 7-hydroxymitragynine is a psychoactive alkaloid found naturally in trace amounts in kratom leaves.

Regrettably, some companies have synthetically concentrated 7OH, making it extremely addictive. In fact, 7OH is engineered to be addictive. It is a potent opioid by design. Synthetic concentrated 7OH products are currently sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and other retail and online venues throughout the state. Anyone any age can purchase 7OH in California.

High doses of concentrated synthetic 7OH and-- or co-used with alcohol or other sedatives can cause risk, severe respiratory depression, and even death in some cases. As they are unregulated, many contain unknown concentrations, increasing the risk of unintentional overdose. This morning I saw there's a company selling 100 milligram tablets of 7OH, and then in the fine print it says, take one dose every other day-- or not to exceed more than one dose every 48 hours, but a dose is actually one quarter of the tablet.

So this is designed and being marketed to make sure that the intensity and the concentration is as high as they're able to make it, because like I said, it's extremely addictive and keeps people coming back.

Medical research has shown that 7OH binds to the same receptors in the brain as traditional opioids, creating the dependency, withdrawal, and overdose when combined especially with other substances. Despite being marketed as a natural product, concentrated synthetic 7OH has no approved medical use and is widely recognized by public health authorities as dangerous.

This past July, the FDA issued warning letters to firms for illegally marketing concentrated synthetic 7OH products. The FDA indicated that it is, quote, not lawful in dietary supplements and cannot be lawfully added to conventional foods. Additionally, there's no FDA approved drugs containing 7OH, and it's illegal to market any drugs containing 7OH.

Consumers who use 7OH products are exposing themselves to products that have not been proven safe or effective for any use, end quote. As you know, in LA County, a number of people were reported having died last year as a result of being poisoned by 7OH in combination with other substances.

Counties and cities around the state have been going after 7OH, and our efforts throughout the state have mirrored the FDA. So, CNOA, we've been working with counties and cities doing the same thing that hopefully you guys will be considering passing today, and for these reasons, we respectfully request your support for SB 758.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for SB 758? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I join Dr. Rahul Gupta from the Biden Administration and actions from the present administration to separate pure leaf kratom from chemically manipulated materials. We're in support of the vote-- of the bill.

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

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the Counties of Humboldt, Kern, and Tulare, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Travis Legault, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, in support.

Dylan Lisowski, on behalf of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, in support.

My name is Yelsi MacGowan. I'm a parent of a son who suffered ill effects from this kratom. I had a letter I wanted to read, but I understand I can't speak very long, so I would like to submit this.

If you can please give it to the sergeants, we would be happy to receive it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sean MacGowan, also a parent in support of 758. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for SB 758? Seeing no one else, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. Once again, we're only taking testimony from organizations or individuals that filed a former letter of opposition with the committee. Thank you.

I know we have many members of the public here also to express their opposition to the bill. And once again, as I summarized at the beginning of the hearing, we'll allow you to state your name, organization, and position, whether you support or oppose the bill, but testimony will be limited on that basis.

And. Once again, two witnesses. And each witness will have two minutes to address the Committee. Although I've been a little generous with time, so.

To speak, my name is John Cleveland, here on behalf of Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust, or Hart, testifying in opposition to SB 758. In recent months, you may have heard some alarming anecdotes about 7 hydroxymitragynine or 70. This is the result of an intra industry PR battle.

It is a deliberate, considered and strategic effort by some Kratom leaf manufacturers to ensure their own survival. It's why you're suddenly hearing so much about this particular alkaloid, which is rapidly eroding market share for Kratom leaf producers. Here are the facts. 7OH is a naturally occurring component of the Kratom plant.

It's present in raw Kratom in small amounts, but it is also the primary metabolite produced in the body after ingesting Kratom's main active compound, mitragynine. It's not a designer drug, nor a novel lab synthesized chemical being snuck into smoke shops. It's what your liver, your body's most vital filter, converts Kratom into after you ingest it.

Every kratom consumer has 7OH in their system. So rather than choosing winning and losing alkaloids within the same plant, we believe they should all be regulated together under a non criminalized framework. Since 2023, over 1 million Americans have consumed over 1.5 billion servings of 7OH.

Yet the FDA's public database shows only 66 adverse event reports linked to 7OH. That's hundreds fewer than soap 66 adverse events, many of which involve side effects as minor as nausea and dizziness. Out of 1.5 billion servings consumed, there are zero confirmed deaths from 7OH consumed in isolation. That's because 7OH is a partial opioid agonist.

It has a ceiling effect. Conversely, prohibition risks real harm. If 7OH products are banned, the people who suffer won't be bad actors. It will be average Americans who use it to manage pain, recover from addiction and reclaim their health. We are asking to be regulated. That means age verification, licensing requirements, clear labeling standards, independent testing.

Certainly in California, we can address any risks without criminalizing law abiding consumers. This is an attempt to create a false narrative around a public safety crisis that simply doesn't exist. Creating a new misdemeanor creates new costs. And I have to imagine the majority of Golden State law enforcement has other priorities.

Urge the Committee to please study this issue further and vote no on SB 758 as written. Thank you very much.

Good morning Honorable Chair Arreguin, Vice Chair Seyarto and Members of this Committee. My name is Jackie Subek. I am the founder and Executive Director of Seven Hope Alliance. We're a nonprofit dedicated to public education, advocacy and science. On 7 and kratom. I am speaking here today in strong opposition of this Bill. We support responsible regulation.

But this is not regulation. This is prohibition and criminalization. Why would the state create a new misdemeanor for adults who are not harming anyone? Why add another crime to our books when we already know the prohibition has never worked? Kratom and 7O are not separate issues.

They are the same plant and are used by real people, law abiding adults. Let me. Let me just say that again. They are the same plant used by the same people. Many of whom of these people rely on these products simply to get through their day. Including 75% of these consumers who use it specifically for chronic pain.

The average consumer is a 43 year old male trying to maintain a quality of life, go to work and take care of his family. These are not criminals, yet this bill would make them so overnight. Even more troubling is that 17% of surveyed 7O consumers said that if these products were banned, they would consider suicide. 17%.

That statistic alone should give this Committee pause. These substances are being used as wellness and harm reduction tools, often as alternatives to far more dangerous opioids that are fueling the overdose crisis. Bans do not stop, use or eliminate demand. They drive people to the street, to unsafe and untested products and into criminal justice system.

They also impose new costs on the state in enforcement prosecutions and in the courts. At a time when the state budget is already strained and public safety resources are stretched thin, criminalizing consumers and vendors diverts limited funds away from genuine threats to public safety.

I ask you to look around this room at the adults here today and consider whether making us criminals is truly the outcome you intend to. With me today is Dr. Michelle Ross, a science and addiction expert. She will be available for any science questions you may have. Thank you very much for your consideration on this important issue.

We urge your no vote.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now take any testimony for any Members of the public here who'd like to Express opposition to SB 758. Once again, if you can, please state your name, your your organization or where you're from and whether you support or oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Baccus for Drug Policy alliance we're opposed to making distribution a misdemeanor. Thank you.

My name is Terry Blevins, former local and federal law enforcement officer and board Member and speaker for LEAP Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and I oppose this Bill.

My name is Charles Dillard. I'm a 7O vendor and with the drastic reduction in opioid overdose deaths, I strongly oppose this Bill.

My name is Dan Arousa and I strongly oppose. 758.

George Parenthood, on behalf of ACLU, California. Action, we're opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Henderson, on behalf of the Ella. Baker center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Good morning. Excuse me. Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders association, opposed unless amended. Thanks.

Good morning. Elizabeth Kim, with initiate justice and respectful opposition.

Arianna Montez, on behalf of the California. Attorneys for Criminal justice and opposition.

Eisha Dacey for California Retail and Distribution. Fairness association, strongly oppose this.

Hi, Sue Jen with the California Retail and Distribution Fairness association, and I oppose this Bill.

Good morning. My name is Eric Jansen with Students. For Sensible Drug Policy, and I oppose this Bill.

Matthew Carr, I'm an advocate from Los. Angeles and I oppose this Bill.

Ryan Smolinitsky, I'm an advocate as well from Los Angeles and I also oppose this Bill.

Heywood Mitchell. I am an advocate for sensible drug. Policy from Santa Barbara county and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Randall Forkner Jr. I'm an advocate from Orange County, and I oppose this Bill.

Hi, I'm Coley Martinez from Santa Rosa. I'm a consumer advocate and I oppose this Bill.

Aiden Moore with the Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and I oppose this Bill.

Gina Giorgio, on behalf of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, we support sensible regulation. We respectfully oppose.

Victor Pino on behalf of Students for Sensible Drug Policy from Castro Valley, and. We oppose this Bill.

Garrett Lacy, an advocate from Davis, California, and I oppose this Bill.

Twinkle Van Fleet, independent consumer advocate from Fairfield, California, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

I'm Wednesday Forest Bear, and I'm a consumer myself, as well as working with other consumers and veterans that also use 7.0, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi, this is Taron Reddy, and I oppose this Bill. I'm a consumer, too.

Hello, it's Abhilraj Singh. I'm a retailer and I oppose this Bill.

Good morning. Mohammed Muthanna. I oppose this Bill and I'm a retailer. Thank you.

Good morning. Jessica Lawless. I am a consumer. I have Crohn's and chronic pain, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Richard Fuentes from Orange County with Students for Sensible Drug Policy. And I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the hearing room who'd like to express opposition to SB 758? Last call for any Members of public wishing to express opposition to the Bill. Okay. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone. Thank you, everyone, for being here today and for your testimony and to our witnesses.

The author is not back yet. I know that he's in another Committee, so perhaps if there are any questions, we can direct them to the witnesses and once the author arrives, we can direct them to the author. If I can just begin the discussion.

Over the past week, working with Committee staff, we have studied this issue extensively, and I've had conversations with various stakeholders as well as with the author directly. And I just want to summarize the amendments.

The author has agreed to take one to narrow the definition of retailer, to ban a tobacco retailer from selling nitrous oxide, but to have an exception for, I guess, a sale for legitimate culinary purposes. Grocery stores and General retail that serve food. Yeah. So if you're a corner store or your store that does not sell food. Right.

Grocery stores defined in the Civil Code.

Yeah, grocery stores as defined in the Civil code. So we're trying to make sure that there isn't an unintended consequence of the prohibition. Legitimate prohibition, to address the very tragic circumstances that you had talked about, but to ensure that people they're purchasing for legitimate use that continues to be allowed in California.

On the issue of kratom and 70 the amendments would move it from schedule one to now just a misdemeanor for the sale or distribution. Once again, just the sale or distribution products containing 70 except as naturally occurring in the Kratom plant.

And in speaking to Senator Umberg, you know, I want to thank the author for taking these amendments. I. My recommendation is an aye as amended in order for this Bill to move out of Committee and to continue throughout the legislative process.

But what I did express to Senator Umberg is I would like to see more discussion and work on this Bill as it moves forward. I personally believe that we need a more bus public health discussion on the public health impacts of kratom and 7OH. There are negative health impacts associated with both products.

And the California Department of Public Health referenced this in their recent statement last year around the health impacts of kratom and 7OH. I also believe that the Senate Health Committee may be holding an informational hearing soon about this very issue. Our focus here in this Committee is on the criminal, the penalty aspect of this Bill.

The public health conversation is I think appropriate to have in the public health Committee. I personally like to see this ultimately regulated, and I hope that as this Bill moves forward that that will be given due consideration. There are some people, including those Members of the public who've come today, who have used this responsibly.

It does help with pain management or helping address various addiction issues. There's some who have sadly abused it, and there have been tragic consequences as have been referenced. And so I hope that as this Bill moves forward that we'll continue to have a robust public health discussion on the benefits or consequences of the use of kratom.

And 7OH, I think that we should talk about all this together.

We shouldn't just single out one product because there are negative health impacts associated with Kratom, too, and hope that as this Bill moves forward that we can discuss developing a regulatory framework for legitimate use in California for people over 21 years of age, similar to what we've done for adult use of cannabis.

But we need to have more discussion. We need to look at the benefits, the impacts, and I hope that that will happen as we continue this conversation here in the Legislature. So I just want to just frame kind of my position, and I am. I'm willing to have this Bill move out with those amendments which. Which.

Which take it from being a Schedule 1 drug to now just focusing on a misdemeanor for the sale and distribution, not possession, sale and distribution, but with the understanding from the author that he will continue to work with myself and the Committee as this Bill moves forward. So, Senator Wiener.

My apologies, Mr. Chair, normally I would have spoken before you, so apologies for that. I just want to, first of all, associate myself with the chair's remarks, which reflect my views as well. I was very concerned with the Bill creating criminalization for possession or possession to. With intent to sell. That was not something that I would support.

So with this change, I'm willing to support moving this out of Committee. I do agree with the chair that a regulatory health approach to this is preferable so that people who need access can get access. But we move away from a sort of Wild West kind of situation that is creating, excuse me, danger for people.

So I will be voting to move this out of Committee today. And I do want to associate myself with the chair's remarks. Senator Caballero and then President.

I want to thank everyone for being here today. We received a lot of information, and the difficulty is that on the one hand, we have testimony that says it's not dangerous and people aren't dying and we don't need to be that concerned about it.

And then we have other testimony from local government and public safety resources that are saying, you know, this is a crisis in our community and we need to do something about it. And this is the Public Safety Committee. So that's our.

Our interest is what do we need to do to protect the public and what's the frame that we need to talk about this? I think that both can be true. But here's the challenge, I think, is that to make it a public safety issue only, I think, is not wise.

To me, this is, as has been articulated by some of my colleagues, a regulatory public health issue. And we should be looking at this in terms of. And frankly, it reminds me of the discussion about cannabis back in the day.

You know that video that many of you are probably too young to remember, but the Dangers of Merrill Reefer Madness, it was a crazy video. It showed people that smoked Marijuana going kind of apeshit, if you will. And if you know anything about Marijuana, it's just not true. People fall asleep or they eat themselves into a coma.

But so to me, the whole idea of having it be a public health frame is really important with age restrictions, medical uses and quantities.

Because this whole idea that you could sell a pill and then, say, cut it into quarters, it's a little bit like when you buy a soda and it says one serving is 500 calories and there's four servings in a can. Right? I mean, it's a trick. It's a trick.

And it's meant to confuse you as to exactly how much you can consume. So I'm not. I really appreciate the negotiation that's been going on. I probably will support it just to keep it moving and the discussion going. But if it comes to the floor as a crime, I'm not interested in making it a crime.

I just don't think that the timing is right on that. I think that. I think that we need to study this more. We need an understanding of the beneficial uses and then advise people and advise them of the dangers as well. I'm concerned that it's addictive.

I'm concerned that there may be quantities that make it very, very dangerous. I'm concerned that children or young people have access to it, and I think there are ways for us to be able to limit that access. And much as we try to protect the public, there are those that are going to abuse the system anyway.

And so we want to make it as hard for them to get their hands on it as possible. So it's my two cents worth. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. The next stop for this Bill, if this moves out today, is the Appropriations Committee, which you chair. So Senator Umberg's office, take note of what Senator Caballero said. We'll go next to Senate Perez and Senator Sierra to. Would you like to speak to.

Well, first of all, I just want to thank all of those that showed up today to participate in the discussion and appreciated the comments of both, you know, all three Senators, including our chair. I, you know, I think for me, what's really important is that, you know, these discussions be driven around conversations that focus on public health.

Right. There have been folks that have reached out to my office that have shared to me that 7OH kratom is, you know, a tool that they use to help with pain management. Right. But my understanding is there are some adverse side effects. This does not have FDA approval.

And so in terms of recommendations on, you know, what is this prescribed dose to take in order to deal, you know, with pain?

Age limits, as was suggested before by Senator Caballero, making sure that circumstances, people under a certain age are not using these products and getting that information, I think, you know, out to the public is important, but the FDA has not come up with those guidelines. Right. So we're getting out a little bit ahead of ourselves here. My.

I also. This is a relatively new topic for me. This Bill has two components. One is the nitrous oxide components, or nos, which I'm more familiar with because that is something that has existed and I think been on the market for many years.

And I think it completely makes sense for there to be more regulations and a prohibition, you know, on tobacco retailers from being able to sell these products. I actually have been really surprised to see these things, like, popping up in stores and for sale over the counter. It's been very odd.

And so I think that that component of this Bill is very much needed. A 7OH or Kratom I had not heard about before, you know, two days ago. So I have a couple of questions that I'd love to just ask the witnesses that we have here first. So my understanding is kratom and 7oh are different.

This Bill would only be applying towards regulating 7OH, but not kratom. Is that correct? Kind of understanding. And I'd love to have the opposition speak and to also have the support speak.

That's correct. This Bill would just regulate a single alkaloid of the kratom plant, but leave the kratom plants, the precursor material, totally legal.

Yes, that is correct. It's going after 7OH which has been designated by the FDA and public health authorities throughout California and the country as a major cause of concern where Kratom has not receive that designation at this time.

Okay, so the what research has been done because this is part of what I was looking for yesterday in terms of adverse effects 7OH or kratom it leading to death, you know, any sort of adverse side effects.

What has been found that that happens with users of kratom of 7OH that your Bill is aiming to focus on here?

Well, we've been going after, as I said earlier, the 7OH I mean I think our Members would, you know, be happy with a ban on Kratom as well. However, we're focusing on 7OH because of the kind of the urgent danger that it causes and that our society is facing.

So there's lots of research on both sides and not a ton of in depth detailed research. However, I saw another report came out. I think it was yesterday or the day before, more kind of a conglomeration of other research that was all put together, kind of a meta analysis.

And I can get that to your office if you'd like, take a look at it. But yeah, there's lots of studies. I mean LA County Department of Health issued a warning about 7OH State Department of Public Health has done the same thing. They've also said, hey, Kratom's not allowed to be sold per the Fda.

However, the FDA isn't going after Kratom. So we're kind of in this weird place where they're focused on seven. Our association has been working with local governments throughout the state, focus on seven as well, because that's where the harm is. That's where people are.

You know, people aren't dying from Kratom people, especially in LA County, you know, last year there was what, six or seven people that died as a result of seven. And the Pro7 opponents will say that, well, they had other stuff in their system too, that is true, but they also all kind of had a common denominator.

So the seven is really our concern. That's what's really most troubling for us. And so we're trying to do whatever we can. And yet the first iteration of the Bill scheduling it, that would have made felons out of possessors. And now with these Committee amendments, we're just looking at misdemeanor at the most.

And that's for distributors and sellers. So we're not going after the individual users. I don't think that would be appropriate. But I do think that going after people who are selling this stuff and profiting off it at the expense of public health and our children, I think that is the right way to go.

And so there were seven people last year that died as a result of Kratom. Is that what you just said? Or 7OH?

7OH, yeah. They're two completely different substances. Kratom is the natural leaf. And then they take the alkaloid 7OH which does exist in Kratom in minute trace amounts. It's less than, I think, 1 or 2% of the total alkaloid content of the entire plant.

And so then they take that, concentrate it, and now you get a product that's about 500 times more potent than Kratom. So, yes, they both have a tiny bit, or Kratom has a tiny bit in it, but it's not enough to actually cause the opioid effects that 7OH does.

I'd like to defer to my expert, Dr. Ross.

Thank you so much, Committee Member. I would like to say that the research shows that there is actually no oral lethal dose of 7OH relative to the announcement of the overdose deaths in Los Angeles that they attributed to 7OH. They actually, the toxicology reports say 7OH is present. Now, I'll give you an idea here.

Every single person who uses Kratom, the traditional leaf product, has 7OH in their system. So there has been no definitive evidence that these people who have died had kratom products or 7OH products. We cannot distinguish between the two. So we don't know whether these were actually 7OH product, as we have no evidence for that.

Secondly, I'm a researcher, and I completed a survey of 1,522 7OH consumers in the United States. And we found that over 31% experienced no withdrawal symptoms whatsoever. And those that do experience mild to moderate withdrawal symptoms in terms of severity, we're looking at a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10.

So we're looking at something that has withdrawal symptoms similar to caffeine or cannabis. I'm not saying that this is something that is risk free, but the side effects, the withdrawal, the addictiveness of this has actually been sensationalized in the media.

Secondly, the FDA letters and the FDA report in the FDA press release, a lot of it was citing literature that is actually being corrected by scientists. Shortly. There will be corrections to many of the papers that they based their findings on that were actually typos.

So, for example, the literature will say things like 7OH is 13 times more potent than morphine or it binds more tightly to the receptor. Those are actually false statements and they're being corrected in the scientific literature and will be coming out shortly.

So a lot of the emergency bans or federal enforcement, for example, the PDFs that they put out have actually been based on incorrect information that is being fixed right now in the literature.

So it's unfortunate right now that we can't really trust some of the existing literature because it's being played basically like playing a game of telephone where something was typo or misprinted and then another paper was referring to it, another paper was referring to it, and then policy was based on this game of telephone.

But the facts are that 7OH binds to the mu-opioid receptor very similarly to a drug called buprenorphine, which you would know as the main ingredient in Suboxone, which is actually an opioid recovery treatment. In many ways. How it works with the opioid receptor is so similar. It's not morphine, it's not fentanyl.

It's actually acting very similar to something that already is on the market as a pharmaceutical. But this one, again, is plant based. It's not synthetic in the way that it's being presented. By the way, again, this isn't a new ingredient. It's really something that is just.

You can make it oxidized in a very similar way to how it's oxidized in the liver or it's oxidized when it's exposed to oxygen or sunlight. This is actually a natural process. This is not a synthetic, dangerous drug. Zero people have died from it alone in the United States.

When it is combined with alcohol, there is increased risk, just like any opioid or benzodiazepine, etc. Right. Again, I'm for regulations around telling people not to use it with other sedatives and things like that.

But to put 7OH in context with everything else that has existed, if Kratom users in California, for example, have used kratom for 20 years here. Right. And they're all metabolizing it into 7OH. And there wasn't this big panic. You know, there's not been people, you know, hundreds of thousands of people dropping dead from Kratom.

This is a substance that people have been exposed to for decades here. Yes. It is now available in say, tablet forms. But I want to be very clear, the body doesn't really take that 7OH and absorb all of it.

There's low bioavailability so, for example, 2% of that 7OH in the tablet is actually absorbed through the body and used. It doesn't really cross the blood brain barrier. It's not activating opioid receptors in the brain. It's very different. So again, we do need regulations around how much is sold.

I do not think like high milligrams is appropriate, but we're looking at something that isn't morphine. It's more like we're looking at kratom and extra strength. Kratom. Right.

So, you know, just to summarize, because I, I do want to be mindful of time here, you know, it's, it's helpful to hear just kind of your perspective as well on the risk. And what I hear you also acknowledging, though, is that there are some regulations that need to be put into place to provide proper guidelines.

Although their risk might, might be, as you're communicating, you're saying you think that it has been dramatized in the media. There is still risk. And I think that that's important to acknowledge as well. Right. Senator, the author of the Bill. Senator Umberg, it's good to see you back.

You know, I think as we've discussed this and I've heard from both the witnesses and support and opposition, it's been helpful for me at least in my, you know, decision here. I appreciate the amendments that you've taken that look at, you know, removing some of the criminalization components of the Bill, particularly for possession.

I know that we've certainly heard from folks that, you know, have shared personally that they use this for, like, pain management and for other kind of ailments that they're dealing with. As I shared with you, this is a new topic for me. I've been learning about it because of your Bill.

So I, I think I'm comfortable with voting on it today. Knowing that you're going to be taking amendments that you're going to be, you know, continuing to work with some of the opposition and taking that feedback.

I, I can see that there is something that needs to be done here, particularly because we have so many people that are using these products, but they're not FDA regulated and they are available at gas station counters.

And people don't necessarily know what it is that they're purchasing and ingesting and what may or may not be dangerous for them. That's a problem.

I don't know that scheduling it as, you know, a misdemeanor gets to that, but I think that we can continue to work through the legislative process to figure out how we can make things safer.

And I think for me, that is what they most important is, especially the public health components of the Bill, the safety components of this Bill, which I think is the intention and what both the author and the support witnesses here are trying to get at.

So I know Senator Umberg, you know, works very, very hard on his legislation and anticipate that he'll continue to put a lot of efforts into this Bill in particular. So thank you, Senator. Hello, Senator.

Well, thank you for your indulgence of patience. I urge. And aye vote.

Okay, we have more discussion. Oh, I'm sorry.

Slightly more discussion. So there are. There are parts of what every one of my colleagues up here talked about that I agree with. My concern is, you know, one of the questions I do have for the author who sounded the alarm on this, who said we need a Bill that does such and such come from.

Because all bills come from somewhere.

Correct. So I suppose the media initially sounded the alarm, at least in my mind. I've read several different stories concerning the use and abuse of the 7OH. As well as nitrous oxide. So that, I suppose, was the first sounding of the alarm.

California Narcotics Officers association is the sponsor of the Bill, and they also sounded the alarm. And thus I was happy to carry something that I think is within the jurisdictional Legislature and that's providing for the public safety, particularly in this area that is largely unregulated by the Federal Government. So.

Okay. To the doctor thing, you said there's no LD 50 for this lethal dose at all?

That's correct.

Okay. When it's not mixed with something else. So there's no if. If it's a drug interaction, there's a potential. But on its own, you take as much as you want.

So to clarify.

The label says you can only take one pill every two days, basically.

Okay, I apologize for that interruption. So there. Just because there is no oral lethal dose doesn't mean it's free of risks. If you take a lot of it, much more than intended, you can have adverse reactions such as seizures.

But technically it should not be able to kill you via respiratory depression like full agonist opioids, which is basically everything except the kratom alkaloid.

Are you talking about seizures?

It's known, actually, Kratom itself can cause seizures. Yes, it's a reported side effect. So again, high dose, we're not sure you know what that dose is. Further research is needed.

Okay, so you're kind of helping along with this. Needs to have more of a health input than A public safety input.

Exactly. And I would say that in our research survey, again, over 1,500 consumers now, we literally had only one respondent say that they needed to go to the ER for adverse events.

And that's fine. So young people, you know, they're smaller in stature most of the time. So they're. Well, we'll talk LD50. Their LD50 is always lower than an adult. And yet this is accessible to young people. Correct.

Currently, anyone could purchase this, which is not something I agree with.

Yeah, and I concur with that. This is another thing that says indication that this needs to go through a health process to identify what's real and what's not. Because right now we're listening to we don't know what's real and what's not. I in that field for many years, and I've never even heard of this stuff.

So that's what we're dealing with today, what I'm dealing with. So I'm looking at this child component to it. And one of the things, you know, and the adult. All these folks that have come up here to tell us how they're being helped out by this supplement or whatever, I don't know, it's not really a supplement, but.

And I get it, you know, you get older, everything hurts. But young people usually don't have that everything hurts unless they're having a specific medical thing. I don't want to encourage young people to be taking nitrous oxide or putting anything in their body at all that shouldn't be there.

I remember in seventh grade, after a weekend, we came and found out one of our classmates died because that was the big huffing days where they sniffing this and sniffing that. He's probably the first one in the United States to die of sniffing Pam. He took that step, put it in a bag and oiled up his lungs.

He didn't know it. They thought they were sniffing like the accelerant. They supports it out. So, you know, we need some regulatory framework that says, no, we will not be using this for kids. Kids don't, you know, adults get a little bit. And they can also. The other question I had about this was, is there an effect?

In other words, can you take some of this and then go driving around and there's no judgment issues, there's no perception issues or anything like that. Do we know that or not?

So right now, there is published research on Kratom and for example, Kratom duis. There has never been in Orange County, California, at least a DUI solely to Kratom use.

And this study actually was published in 2023, and they looked at DUIs, and they found that Mitrogynine and 7oh was present in some people that had DUIs, but they had many other substances, including, you know, alcohol. So it was just President. It wasn't the permanent cause. So we don't see it.

We don't think it's Dr. Say, motor vehicle accidents in any way. I will say that there is some obviously reinforcing effects to taking a 7OH that we do have to worry about.

Along with my colleagues today. You know, what's not prudent is this is going straight to Appropriations. This should be going to Health, should not be going straight to Appropriations.

I would rather be in health than Public safety, but, you know, allowing it to go forward so we can get a little bit more handle on this before, you know, I have to make that final vote. And Appropriations is probably more prudent.

But at the same time, you know, there are some issues, you know, when you're talking about, you know, kids that shouldn't be taking this stuff, I don't care if it's available to them, they shouldn't be taking.

And until we have a good handle on what all those studies are, how do we make public policy based on what we think instead of what we actually know? And that's what we're kind of being asked to do. And just for the record, I have no interest in being in somebody's market fight. I really don't.

If this is a market fight issue, I'm voting no. But I see a public health issue in it, and it's something that hasn't been explored enough for us to make that determination whether it's a strictly market or a health thing.

So I'll be joining my colleagues today, probably supporting Let It Go, and I'll be doing a lot more research on this to find out exactly where we're at. Also, a lot of the cities that I represent are, are actually doing these ordinances already.

So with that, any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Okay. If not, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. I see that there was quite a robust discussion in my absence and including in my presence. And yes, we will continue to work on this. I do think that this is both a public health issue and a public safety issue. And I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, I'll entertain a motion on SB 758. If there is one my recommendation is due. Pass as amended. Okay, thank you. Okay, we have a motion. If the Committee assistant could please call the roll.

SB 758. Motion is due. Pass as amended to Appropriations. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Perez, Perez, aye. Wiener, Wiener. Aye.

Okay, that Bill is out. Thank you. And Senator Gonzalez will be absent today. So bill's out on the vote of 5 to 0. Okay, let's now go back to file num. 1. SB 99, Blakespear, is there a motion?

Yeah, I moved. I moved that.

Moved by Vice Chair Seyarto. So, ladies and gentlemen, as you're leaving the meeting, if you can please do so quietly. We do have other business that we have to take care of, so motion by Vice Chair Seyarto and SB99 iIf the Committee Assistant will please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that bill's on a vote of 5-0. Okay, that completes our agenda for today. Thank you all. But that this meeting of the Senate Committee on Public Safety is now adjourned.