Synthetic Drugs: Overview and
Issues for Congress

Lisa N. Sacco
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy
Kristin Finklea
Acting Section Research Manager and Specialist in Domestic Security
September 16, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42066
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Summary
Synthetic drugs, as opposed to natural drugs, are chemically produced in a laboratory. Their
chemical structure can be either identical to or different from naturally occurring drugs, and their
effects are designed to mimic or even enhance those of natural drugs. When produced
clandestinely, they are not typically controlled pharmaceutical substances intended for legitimate
medical use. Designer drugs are a form of synthetic drugs. They contain slightly modified
molecular structures of illegal or controlled substances, and they are modified in order to
circumvent existing drug laws. While the issue of synthetic drugs and their abuse is not new,
Congress has demonstrated a renewed concern with the issue.
From 2009-2011, synthetic drug abuse was reported to have dramatically increased. During this
time period, calls to poison control centers for incidents relating to harmful effects of synthetic
cannabinoids (such as “K2” and “Spice”) and stimulants (such as “bath salts”) increased at what
some considered to be an alarming rate. The number of hospital emergency department visits
involving synthetic cannabinoids more than doubled from 2010 to 2011. In 2012, however, the
number of calls to poison control centers for incidents relating to harmful effects of synthetic
cannabinoids and synthetic stimulants decreased. The Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey
results from 2012 indicate that annual prevalence rates for use of “bath salts” among college
students and adults ages 18-50 was “very low.” In contrast, MTF reports that, among 12th graders,
synthetic marijuana is the “second most widely used class of illicit drug after marijuana.” Media
reports indicate that a synthetic substance known as “molly,” a psychoactive drug that may be
similar or identical to MDMA (3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), appears to be gaining
popularity among youth. In the summer of 2013, several deaths and drug overdoses have been
attributed to molly.
The reported harmful effects of synthetic substances range from nausea to drug-induced
psychosis. Due to the unpredictable nature of synthetic drugs and of human consumption of these
drugs, the true effects of many of these drugs are unknown. Many states have responded to the
synthetic drug abuse issue by passing synthetic drug laws banning certain synthetic cannabinoids
and stimulants.
In 2011, the Attorney General—through the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—used his
temporary scheduling authority to place five synthetic cannabinoids and three synthetic
stimulants on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Concern over the reported
increase in use of certain synthetic cannabinoids and stimulants resulted in legislative action to
schedule specific substances. The Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012—Subtitle D of
Title XI of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-144)—added
five structural classes of substances in synthetic cannabinoids (and their analogues) as well as 11
synthetic stimulants and hallucinogens to Schedule I of the CSA. In addition, the act extended the
DEA’s authority to temporarily schedule substances. In April 2013, Attorney General Holder—
through the DEA and in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)—took administrative action to permanently place methylone on Schedule I of the CSA.
Most recently in May 2013, Attorney General Holder—again through the DEA—used his
temporary scheduling authority to place three additional synthetic cannabinoids on Schedule I of
the CSA.
In considering permanent placement of synthetic substances on Schedule I of the CSA, there are
several issues on which Congress may deliberate. Policymakers may consider the implications on
Congressional Research Service

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

the federal criminal justice system of scheduling certain synthetic substances. Another issue up
for debate is whether Congress should schedule certain synthetic substances or whether these
substances merit Attorney General (in consultation with the Secretary of HHS) scheduling based
on qualifications specified in the CSA. Congress may also consider whether placing additional
synthetic drugs on Schedule I may hinder future medical research. In addition, policymakers may
consider whether it is more efficient to place these drugs on Schedule I of the CSA or to treat
them as analogue controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement
Act. In considering enforcement challenges identified by the DEA, Congress may consider
whether to amend the CSA to better facilitate enforcement action against the illicit synthetic drug
market.

Congressional Research Service

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Contents
Background on Synthetic and Designer Drugs ................................................................................ 1
Scheduling of Synthetic Drugs: Controlled Substances Act ............................................................ 2
Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 ...................................................... 2
Temporary Scheduling ............................................................................................................... 3
Recent Temporary Drug Scheduling Actions ............................................................................ 4
Current Trends in Selected Synthetics ............................................................................................. 5
Synthetic Cannabinoids ............................................................................................................. 5
Synthetic Stimulants .................................................................................................................. 8
Methamphetamine ............................................................................................................... 8
MDMA ................................................................................................................................ 9
Other Stimulants ................................................................................................................ 10
Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 .............................................................................. 12
Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 13
Implications of Scheduling ...................................................................................................... 13
Use of Research in Scheduling ................................................................................................ 14
Future Medical Research ......................................................................................................... 15
Controlled vs. Analogue Substances ....................................................................................... 15

Tables
Table 1. DEA Temporary Drug Scheduling Actions ........................................................................ 4

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Background on Synthetic and Designer Drugs
Synthetic drugs, as opposed to natural drugs, are chemically produced in a laboratory. Their
chemical structure can be either identical to or different from naturally occurring drugs, and their
effects are designed to mimic or even enhance those of natural drugs.1 When produced
clandestinely, they are not typically controlled pharmaceutical substances intended for legitimate
medical use. Designer drugs are a form of synthetic drugs. They slightly modify the molecular
structures of illegal or controlled substances to circumvent existing drug laws.
For over three decades, there has been national-level attention on the use and abuse of synthetic
drugs. Congress became concerned about the abuse of designer drugs in the early 1980s when
policymakers were examining the diversion of controlled substances—intended for medical use—
to the black market.2 There was concern about the health and safety effects of using and abusing
pharmaceutically created drugs as well as other modified synthetics. While a bulk of this focus
has been on methamphetamine, the spotlight has recently shifted to other synthetic stimulants as
well as synthetic cannabinoids.3 Due to the lack of research on many of these synthetics and their
various analogues, the full scope of their effects and potential dangers is still not well known.
Concern over the reported increase in use of certain synthetic cannabinoids and stimulants led
some to call on Congress to legislatively schedule specific substances.4 This is, in part, because
congressional action could place certain substances onto Schedule I of the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA) more quickly than might occur through administrative scheduling actions by the
Attorney General and Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as
authorized by the CSA.5 In June 2012, Congress passed the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act
of 2012—Subtitle D of Title XI of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act
(P.L. 112-144).6 to, among other things, permanently schedule selected synthetic stimulants and
other synthetic substances.
This report discusses the federal scheduling of controlled substances, including the temporary
scheduling of substances. It also provides an overview of current trends in selected synthetic
cannabinoids and stimulants. It concludes with a review of relevant legislation as well as possible
issues policymakers might consider.

1 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Synthetic Drugs, http://www.apaic.org/index.php?option=com_content&
view=article&id=91&Itemid=63.
2 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Designer Drugs, 99th Cong., 1st sess.,
May 1, 1986, p. 1.
3 Synthetic cannabinoids are substances chemically produced to mimic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active
ingredient in marijuana.
4 Statement for the record of Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug
Enforcement Administration, before the U.S. Congress, Senate United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics
Control, The Dangers of Synthetic Cannabinoids and Stimulants, 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 6, 2011,
http://drugcaucus.senate.gov/hearing-4-6-11/DEA%20_Rannazzisi_%20testimony.pdf.
5 For more information on the CSA and administrative scheduling actions, see “Scheduling of Synthetic Drugs:
Controlled Substances Act.”
6 It was offered as an amendment (S.Amdt. 2146) to S. 3187.
Congressional Research Service
1

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Scheduling of Synthetic Drugs: Controlled
Substances Act

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was enacted as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-513).7 It regulates the manufacture, possession, use,
importation, and distribution of certain drugs, substances, and precursor chemicals. Under the
CSA, there are five schedules under which substances may be classified—Schedule I being the
most restrictive.8 Substances placed onto one of the five schedules are evaluated on
• actual or relative potential for abuse;
• known scientific evidence of pharmacological effects;
• current scientific knowledge of the substance;
• history and current pattern of abuse;
• scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
• risk to public health;
• psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
• whether the substance is an immediate precursor of an already-scheduled
substance.
There are designated procedures under which the scheduling of substances normally occurs.9
Specifically, the Attorney General—through the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and in
consultation with the Secretary of HHS—may place a drug or substance on Schedule I if it meets
all of the following criteria:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical
supervision.10
Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986
The Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 (Analogue Enforcement Act) was
enacted as Subtitle E of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-570). This law amended the
Controlled Substances Act to treat a controlled substance analogue (intended for human

7 21 U.S.C. §801 et. seq.
8 The Attorney General (through the DEA) and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (through the Food and
Drug Administration) may schedule substances, as may Congress through legislation.
9 21 U.S.C. §811.
10 21 U.S.C. §812(b)(1).
Congressional Research Service
2

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

consumption) as a controlled substance under Schedule I.11 Under this law, a controlled substance
analogue is defined as a substance if
(i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a
controlled substance in schedule I or II;
(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system
that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic
effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or
(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a
stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is
substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on
the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.12
Of note, many of the synthetic cathinones marketed under household names such as “bath salts”
or “plant food” are stamped with “not intended for human consumption.” This action is intended
to circumvent the Analogue Enforcement Act under the CSA.13
Temporary Scheduling
Because policymakers were concerned about the effects of pharmaceutically created and other
modified drugs, Congress gave the Attorney General the authority to temporarily place a
substance onto Schedule I of the CSA to “avoid imminent hazards to public safety.”14 When
determining whether there is an imminent hazard, the Attorney General (through the DEA) must
consider the drug’s history and current pattern of abuse; scope, duration, and significance of
abuse; and risk to public health.
Once scheduled through this temporary scheduling process, a substance may remain on Schedule
I for two years. The Attorney General then has the authority to keep the substance on Schedule I
for an additional one year before it must be removed or permanently scheduled. The Synthetic
Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012—Subtitle D of Title XI of the Food and Drug Administration
Safety and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-144)—extended the DEA’s temporary scheduling authority.
Prior to enactment of this act on July 9, 2012, the DEA was able to temporarily place a substance
on Schedule I of the CSA for one year, with a potential extension of six months.

11 21 U.S.C. §813.
12 21 U.S.C. §802(32)(A). For more information on which drugs or substances may be placed on Schedule II, see 21
U.S.C. §812(b)(2).
13 Statement for the record of Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug
Enforcement Administration, before the U.S. Congress, United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics
Control, The Dangers of Synthetic Cannabinoids and Stimulants, 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 6, 2011,
http://drugcaucus.senate.gov/hearing-4-6-11/DEA%20_Rannazzisi_%20testimony.pdf.
14 21 U.S.C. §811(h). The Attorney General was given this authority in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
(Title II of P.L. 98-473).
Congressional Research Service
3

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Recent Temporary Drug Scheduling Actions
Over the past several years, the DEA has taken several temporary scheduling actions. In October
2011, the DEA placed three synthetic cathinones15 on the list of controlled substances under
Schedule I of the CSA. In March 2011, the DEA placed five synthetic cannabinoids on Schedule
I.16 In May 2013, the DEA placed three additional synthetic cannabinoids on Schedule I. Since
2002, the DEA has used this temporary scheduling authority on 16 synthetic substances, outlined
in Table 1. Prior to 2002, the most recent time DEA exercised this authority was in 1995.17
Table 1. DEA Temporary Drug Scheduling Actions
2002–2013
Temporary
Temporary
Natural/
Scheduling
Scheduling
Permanent
Drug Name
Synthetic
Date
Extension
Scheduling
1-pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)-
Synthetic 5/16/2013 — —
methanone (UR-144)
1-(5-fluoro-pentyl)-1H- indol-3-yl](2,2,3,3-tetramethyl-
Synthetic 5/16/2013 — —
cyclopropyl)methanone (5-fluoro-UR-144, XLR11)
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
Synthetic 5/16/2013 — —
(APINACA, AKB48)
3,4- methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone (methylone)
Synthetic
10/21/2011
10/17/2012
4/12/2013
4-methyl-N-methylcathinone (mephedrone)
Synthetic
10/21/2011

—a
3,4- methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV)
Synthetic
10/21/2011

—a
1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018)
Synthetic
3/1/2011
2/29/2012
—a
1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073)
Synthetic
3/1/2011
2/29/2012
—a
1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole
Synthetic 3/1/2011
2/29/2012 —a
(JWH- 200)
5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-
Synthetic 3/1/2011
2/29/2012 —a
phenol (CP-47,497)
5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-
Synthetic 3/1/2011
2/29/2012 —a
phenol (cannabicyclohexanol; CP-47,497 C8 homologue)
Alpha-methyltryptamine (AMT)
Synthetic
4/4/2003
4/1/2004
9/29/2004
5-methoxy-N,N-di sopropyltryptamine (5-MeO-DIPT)
Synthetic
4/4/2003
4/1/2004
9/29/2004
3-Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine (TFMPP)
Synthetic
9/20/2002
9/20/2003
3/19/2004
N-Benzylpiperazine (BZP)
Synthetic
9/20/2002
9/20/2003
3/18/2004
2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylthiophenethylamine
Synthetic 9/20/2002
9/20/2003
3/18/2004
(2C-T-7)

15 Cathinones are central nervous system stimulants.
16 In February 2012, a temporary scheduling extension maintained the Schedule I placement of these substances.
17 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Lists of: Scheduling
Actions, Controlled Substances, Regulated Chemicals
, May 2013, http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/
orangebook/orangebook.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Lists of:
Scheduling Actions, Controlled Substances, Regulated Chemicals
, May 2013, http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/
schedules/orangebook/orangebook.pdf.
Notes: Dates are effective dates. Scheduling actions are listed in reverse chronological order.
a. This substance was permanently scheduled, although not by the DEA. It was legislatively scheduled in P.L.
112-144.
Of note, the last 16 substances to have been temporarily (and, for six of them, subsequently
permanently) placed on Schedule I of the CSA are synthetic substances.
Current Trends in Selected Synthetics
Synthetic compounds have been created across the various classes of drugs.18 Law enforcement
and policymakers—at both the state and federal levels—have taken an interest in and responded
to the increasing use of certain synthetic cannabinoids and stimulants. The United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime reports the global emergence of certain synthetic cathinones and
cannabinoids from 2009-2011.19
Synthetic Cannabinoids
Synthetic cannabinoids are substances chemically produced to mimic tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the active ingredient in marijuana. When these substances are sprayed onto dried herbs
and then consumed through smoking or oral ingestion, they can produce psychoactive effects
similar to those of marijuana.20 Synthetic cannabinoids were first produced for research purposes
to study the effects of cannabinoids on brain functioning and their efficacy in treating pain.
The DEA has indicated that the primary users of these synthetic substances are youth who
purchase the substances online or in gas stations, convenience stores, smoke shops, and head
shops.21 The substances are often sold as herbal incense, and common brand names under which
synthetic cannabinoids are marketed are “Spice” and “K2.” Other names include “Blaze,” “Red X
Dawn,” “Genie,” and “Zohai,” among others.22
Clemson University Professor John Huffman is credited with first synthesizing some of the
cannabinoids, such as JWH-018, now used in “fake pot” substances such as K2. The effects of
JWH-018 can be 10 times stronger than those of THC. Dr. Huffman is quoted as saying, “These
things are dangerous—anybody who uses them is playing Russian roulette. They have profound

18 The Controlled Substances Act regulates drugs in five major classes: narcotics (including marijuana), depressants,
stimulants, hallucinogens, and anabolic steroids. For more information on these classes, see the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, Drug Classes, http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/drug_classes.html.
19 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2013, Vienna, May 2013, pp. 67-70,
http://www.unodc.org.
20 National Conference of State Legislatures, Synthetic Cannabinoids (K2), January 18, 2011, http://www.ncsl.org/?
tabid=21398.
21 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Nationwide Synthetic Drug Takedown, DEA News,
July 26, 2012, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr072612.html.
22 Ibid; U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Drugs of Abuse, 2011 Edition,
http://www.dea.gov.
Congressional Research Service
5

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

psychological effects. We never intended them for human consumption.”23 While synthetic
cannabinoids may be used with the intention of getting a marijuana-like high, their actual effects
are not yet known. Some reported effects of synthetic cannabinoids, such as relaxation and
reduced blood pressure, are consistent with effects of marijuana. Other reported effects, such as
nausea, increased agitation, elevated blood pressure, and racing heart rates, are not.24 The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has noted epidemiological links between synthetic
cannabinoid use and acute kidney injury.25 In at least one case, synthetic marijuana has been
blamed for a fatality when an Iowa teen committed suicide reportedly following a K2-induced
panic attack.26
According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), poison control
centers around the country received 2,906 calls about synthetic cannabinoid substances in 2010,
up from a reported 14 calls in 2009. In 2011, these calls increased to 6,959 and in 2012, calls
declined to 5,205. From January through August 2013, there were 1,821 reported calls regarding
human exposure to synthetic cannabinoids.27 It is unclear if this recent decline can be linked to
the enactment of the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012, which, among other things,
added certain synthetic cannabinoids to Schedule I of the CSA.
As mentioned, youth are the primary users of these substances. The Monitoring the Future
(MTF)28 survey first reported on the rise in synthetic cannabinoid use in its 2011 survey. MTF
asked 12th graders about use in the prior 12 months, and 11.4 % indicated use during this time
period. According to the 2012 MTF survey, use among 12th graders remained relatively
unchanged at 11.3%. MTF reports that, among 12th graders, synthetic marijuana is the “second
most widely used class of illicit drug after marijuana.”29
On March 1, 2011, the DEA used its temporary scheduling authority and issued a final rule to
place five synthetic cannabinoids on the list of controlled substances under Schedule I of the
CSA.30 The five substances are

23 David Zucchino, “Scientist’s Research Produces a Dangerous High,” Los Angeles Times, September 28, 2011,
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-killer-weed-20110928,0,2646834.story?page=1.
24 National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Drug Facts: Spice (Synthetic Marijuana), December
2012, http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/spice-synthetic-marijuana.
25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Acute Kidney Injury Associated with Synthetic Cannabinoid Use—
Multiple States, 2012
, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, February 15, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
preview/mmwrhtml/mm6206a1.htm.
26 See, for example, Malcolm Gay, “Synthetic Marijuana Spurs State Bans,” The New York Times, July 10, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/us/11k2.html.
27 American Association of Poison Control Centers, Synthetic Marijuana Data, (As of August 31, 2013),
http://www.aapcc.org/alerts/synthetic-marijuana/; and National Conference of State Legislatures, Synthetic
Cannabinoids (K2)
, January 18, 2011, http://www.ncsl.org/.
28 The Monitoring the Future project is a long-term study of American adolescents, college students, and adults through
age 50. It has been conducted annually by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research since its inception
in 1975 and has been supported by research grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. For more information,
see http://www.monitoringthefuture.org.
29 Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick O'Malley, and Jerald G. Bachman, et al., Monitoring the Future, National Results on
Drug Use: 2012 Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use
, The University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research, Research Grant No. 3 R01 DA 01411 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Ann Arbor, MI, February
2013, pp. 5 and 14, http://www.monitoringthefuture.org. Hereinafter, Monitoring the Future, National Results on Drug
Use: 2012 Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use
.
30 Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

• 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018);
• 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073);
• 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200);
• 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497);
and
• 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol
(cannabicyclohexanol; CP-47,497 C8 homologue).
Pursuant to the temporary scheduling authority, these substances remained on the list of Schedule
I controlled substances for one year and on February 29, 2012, they were each given a six-month
temporary extension.
In June 2012, Congress passed legislation to permanently schedule these five synthetic
cannabinoids (and other synthetic substances). The Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of
2012—Subtitle D of Title XI of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act
(P.L. 112-144, signed by the President on July 9, 2012)—permanently added “cannabimimetic
agents” to Schedule I of the CSA. Under this act, a cannabimimetic agent is defined as one of five
structural classes of synthetic cannabinoids (and their analogues). The act also provided 15
examples of cannabimimetic substances, including the five substances that the DEA had
temporarily scheduled in March 2011.
On May 16, 2013, the DEA again used its temporary scheduling authority and issued a final rule
to place three synthetic cannabinoids on the list of controlled substances under Schedule I of the
CSA.31 The three substances are
• 1-pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone (UR-144)
• [1-(5-fluoro-pentyl)-1H- indol-3-yl](2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
(5-fluoro-UR-144, XLR11); and
• N-(1-adamantyl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (APINACA, AKB48).
Pursuant to the temporary scheduling authority, as expanded under the Synthetic Drug Abuse
Prevention Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-144), these substances will remain on the list of Schedule I
controlled substances for two years.
As of November 2012, at least 41 states and Puerto Rico had legislatively banned chemical
substances contained in synthetic cannabinoids.32 Of note, the Maryland General Assembly
passed a bill that bans “cannabimimetic agents” and specific compounds; this bill will take effect

(...continued)
Placement of Five Synthetic Cannabinoids Into Schedule I,” 76 (40) Federal Register 11075-11078, March 1, 2011.
31 Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary
Placement of Three Synthetic Cannabinoids Into Schedule I,” 78 (95) Federal Register 28735-28739, May 16, 2013.
32 National Conference of State Legislatures, Synthetic Drug Threats, November 28, 2012, http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=
21398.
Congressional Research Service
7

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

on October 1, 2013.33 The U.S. military has also banned personnel from possessing or using these
substances.34
Synthetic Stimulants
Synthetic stimulants are chemically produced substances that affect the central nervous system.
Stimulants include drugs such as amphetamine (including methamphetamine), cocaine, and
Ecstasy (MDMA, or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine). The synthetic forms of stimulants
can be administered through oral ingestion, inhalation, or injection.
Methamphetamine
The DEA indicates that methamphetamine is “a continuing problem in the United States.”35
According to the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH),36 there were
approximately 440,000 current (past month) users of methamphetamine age 12 or older. The
number of past month methamphetamine users decreased between 2006 and 2012, from 731,000
(0.3%) to 440,000 (0.2 %).37 The illicit manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine have been
long-standing problems in some states and regions of the country. In 2011, the National Drug
Intelligence Center (NDIC) stated that domestic availability of methamphetamine was increasing
because of increased production of methamphetamine in Mexico and increased illicit domestic
production.38
Another trend that appears to have changed the landscape of methamphetamine production is the
emergence of small-scale, one-pot methamphetamine labs. The “one-pot” or “shake and bake”
method uses a single vessel, such as a 2-liter plastic bottle, to combine all needed chemicals to
create the anhydrous ammonia required for methamphetamine production.39 Through this method,
methamphetamine can be created in about 30 minutes in almost any location. Law enforcement
agencies throughout the country have seen increases in the one-pot methamphetamine production

33 State of Maryland, General Assembly, Chapter 442 (Senate Bill 109), Approved by the Governor, May 16, 2013,
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov.
34 U.S. Department of Defense, “2008 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual,” Chapter 2 – Part D – Offenses
Involving Drugs and Narco-Terrorism, p. 23.
35 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, FY2014 Performance Budget, Congressional
Submission
, p. DEA-63, http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2014justification/pdf/dea-justification.pdf.
36 The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is an annual survey sponsored by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). NSDUH presents data on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and
tobacco in the civilian, non-institutionalized population of the United States aged 12 years old or older. Approximately
67,500 persons are interviewed in NSDUH each year. For more information, see http://www.samhsa.gov/data/
NSDUH.aspx.
37 The previous numbers were 439,000 in 2011, 353,000 in 2010, 502,000 in 2009, 314,000 in 2008, 530,000 in 2007,
731,000 in 2006, 628,000 in 2005, 706,000 in 2004, 726,000 in 2003, and 683,000 in 2002. See U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2012
National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings
, September 2013, http://www.samhsa.gov/
data/NSDUH.aspx.
38 U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Assessment 2011, Product No.
2011-Q0317-001, August 2011, p. 32, http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p.pdf. (Hereinafter,
NDTA, 2011.) On June 15, 2012, the National Drug Intelligence Center closed.
39 National Drug Intelligence Center, 2009 National Methamphetamine Threat Assessment, Product No. 2008-Q0317-
006, December 2008, p. 13; NDTA, 2011, p. 35.
Congressional Research Service
8

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

method.40 For instance, the Tulsa, OK, Police Department responded to 327 methamphetamine
labs in the first 10 months of 2011, up from 323 lab busts in all of 2010. This may be, in part,
because one-pot methamphetamine can be easier to make than that produced on a larger scale.41
Congress continues to be concerned about the abuse and illicit manufacture of methamphetamine
in clandestine labs as well as the illegal trafficking of this substance. Over the past 30 years,
Congress has enacted legislation designed to address these problems. These measures have
included more stringent federal regulation of methamphetamine precursor chemicals such as
pseudoephedrine, enhanced criminal penalties for trafficking in the drug, and authorization of
additional funding for grants providing methamphetamine-specific law enforcement assistance.42
MDMA
MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine), also known as ecstasy, is a psychoactive
substance capable of producing “feelings of increased energy, euphoria, emotional warmth and
empathy toward others, and distortions in sensory and time perception.”43 Users may also
experience increased heart rate and blood pressure, muscle tension, involuntary teeth clenching,
nausea, and in high doses, MDMA can interfere with the body’s ability to regulate temperature.44
It first gained popularity in the early 1980s, after which it was permanently placed on Schedule I
of the CSA by the DEA. It later resurfaced as a popular drug among youth in the nightclub scene
and at raves in the 1990s.45
In 2003, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 200346 amended the CSA47 to more directly
target the producers of raves where synthetic drugs such as MDMA were often used. It shifted
emphasis from punishing those who establish places where drugs are made, distributed, and
consumed to those who knowingly maintain such places. It also established a civil penalty and
equitable relief for “maintaining drug-involved premises.” This act also authorized appropriations
for the DEA to educate youth, parents, and other interested adults about club drugs.
Most recently, in 2013, synthetic substances known as “molly” have gained popularity among
youth at concerts, raves, and in nightclubs.48 While the term “molly” is a street name that has
been used for MDMA and substances similar to MDMA, such as methylone and 1-(3-

40 U.S. Congress, United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Written Statement of Joseph T.
Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Status of
Meth: Oregon’s Experience Making Pseudoephedrine Prescription Only,” 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 13, 2010.
41 Abbie Alford, “Tulsa Breaks Meth Lab Record,” Fox23.com, October 4, 2011.
42 For more information, see archived CRS Report RL32824, Federal Crime Control: Background, Legislation, and
Issues
, by Kristin Finklea and Lisa Seghetti.
43 National Institute on Drug Abuse, Drug Facts: MDMA (Ecstasy), December 2012, http://www.drugabuse.gov/
publications/drugfacts/mdma-ecstasy.
44 Ibid.
45 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Lists of: Scheduling
Actions, Controlled Substances, Regulated Chemicals
, May 2013, http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/
orangebook/orangebook.pdf; Charles F. Levinthal, Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice, 3rd ed. (New York: Prentice
Hall, 2012), pp. 207-208; Associated Press, “U.S. Will Ban ‘Ecstasy,’ a Hallucinogenic Drug,” New York Times, June
1, 1985.
46 Section 608 of the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21).
47 Specifically, it amended Section 416 of the CSA, also known as the “crack house statute.”
48 Marina Csomor, “There’s Something (Potentially Dangerous) About Molly,” CNN, September 3, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
9

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Trifluoromethylphenyl) piperazine (TFMPP),49 recent media reports indicate that molly seizures
in 2013 have involved the powder or crystal form of MDMA with some news articles referring to
this version of molly as a purer version of MDMA.50 In 2013, several deaths and multiple
hospitalizations of young adults in the Northeast and the District of Columbia have been
attributed to molly overdoses.51 The precise chemical makeup of the synthetic substance in
question in these cases remains unclear.
Other Stimulants
One current trend in synthetic stimulants is the appearance of synthetic cathinones, often labeled
as “bath salts.”52 These drugs are sold in powder form and are often marketed under brand names
including “Ivory Wave,” “Purple Wave,” “Red Dove,” “Blue Silk,” “Zoom,” “Bloom,” “Cloud
Nine,” “Ocean Snow,” “Lunar Wave,” “Vanilla Sky,” “White Lightning,” “Scarface,” and
“Hurricane Charlie,” among others.53 Bath salts are sold both online and in retail stores, and the
DEA has indicated that, while user population information is limited, reports show that youth may
be the primary consumers.54
Bath salts often contain amphetamine-like chemicals such as 4-methyl-N-methylcathinone
(mephedrone), 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone (methylone), and 3,4-
methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), but the other contents of this substance are largely
unknown.55 Because MDPV and other amphetamine-like chemicals act as stimulants, they present
a high risk for abuse and addiction.56 There have also been reports of MDPV users craving the
substance.57 Reported side effects of these synthetic stimulants include chest pains, elevated
blood pressure, increased heart rate, agitation, hallucinations, panic attacks, extreme paranoia,
delusions, and even sleep deprivation-induced psychosis; however, their actual effects are not yet
known.58 Poison control centers across the United States received 304 calls about bath salts in

49 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Safety Advisory Regarding New Club Drug “Molly”, News Release, March
21, 2003, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2003/detroit032103.html; U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, Wasilla Man Pleads Guilty in Synthetic Drug Case Which Resulted in Overdose Death, Seattle News,
August 9, 2013, http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/sea/2013/sea080913.shtml.
50 Marina Csomor, “There’s Something (Potentially Dangerous) About Molly,” CNN, September 3, 2013; Jack
Encarnacao, “DEA Warning: There’s No ‘Good Batch’ of Molly,” Boston Herald, September 2, 2013; Maia Szalavitz,
“Concert Deaths: Four Myths About the Drug Molly,” TIME, September 3, 2013; Peter Hermann and Jenna Johnson,
“Clubgoer Who Died in D.C. Might Have Used Drug Linked to Deaths in Boston, New York,” The Washington Post,
September 5, 2013.
51 Ibid.
52 This stimulant drug is entirely different from the water-soluble substances actually designed to enhance the cleansing
and bathing experience—also known as bath salts.
53 National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Message from the Director on “Bath Salts”—
Emerging and Dangerous Products
, 2011, http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/welcome/MessageBathSalts211.html.
54 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), (“bath salts,” “Ivory Wave,” “plant fertilizer,” “Vanilla Sky,” “Energy-
1”)
[sic.], May 2013, http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drug_chem_info/mdpv.pdf.
55 MDPV, methylone, and mephedrone are not approved for medical use in the United States.
56 National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Message from the Director on “Bath Salts”—
Emerging and Dangerous Products
, 2011, http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/welcome/MessageBathSalts211.html.
57 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), (“bath salts,” “Ivory Wave,” “plant fertilizer,” “Vanilla Sky,” “Energy-
1”)
[sic.], May 2013, http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drug_chem_info/mdpv.pdf..
58 Ibid. See also National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Message from the Director on “Bath
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

2010. This number climbed to 6,138 calls in 2011. Similar to the trend in poison control center
calls regarding synthetic cannabinoids, calls regarding bath salts also declined in 2012 compared
to 2011; in 2012, there were 2,657 reported calls to poison control centers about exposure to bath
salts. From January through August 2013, there were 690 reported calls regarding human
exposure to bath salts.59 It is unclear if this recent decline can be related to the enactment of the
Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012. In 2012, MTF survey began collecting data on use
of bath salts, and reported annual prevalence rates for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders to be 0.8%, 0.6%,
and 1.3% respectively. MTF described these rates as very low.60
On October 21, 2011, the DEA used its temporary scheduling authority and issued a final rule to
place three synthetic stimulants (cathinones, in this instance) on the list of controlled substances
under Schedule I of the CSA.61 The three substances are
• mephedrone,
• methylone, and
• MDPV.
In June 2012, Congress passed legislation to permanently schedule selected synthetic stimulants
and other synthetic substances. The Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012—Subtitle D of
Title XI of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-144, signed by
the President on July 9, 2012)—permanently added mephedrone and MDPV, along with nine
other synthetic stimulants and hallucinogens, to Schedule I of the CSA. This act did not, however,
schedule methylone; as provided through the DEA’s temporary scheduling authority. Methylone
was given a six month extension and remained on Schedule I for an additional six months until
April 2013 when Attorney General Holder—through the DEA and in consultation with the
Secretary of HHS—took administrative action to permanently place methylone on Schedule I of
the CSA.62
As of November 2012, at least 43 states and Puerto Rico had banned chemical substances
contained in synthetic stimulants such as bath salts.63 Of note, the Maryland General Assembly
recently passed a bill that would ban certain cathinones among other substances; this bill will take
effect on October 1, 2013.64

(...continued)
Salts” – Emerging and Dangerous Products, 2011, http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/welcome/
MessageBathSalts211.html.
59 American Association of Poison Control Centers, “Bath Salts Data,” August 31, 2013, http://www.aapcc.org/alerts/
bath-salts/.
60 Monitoring the Future, National Results on Drug Use: 2012 Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use, p. 5.
61 Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary
Placement of Three Synthetic Cathinones Into Schedule I,” 76 (204) Federal Register 65371-65375, October 21, 2011.
62 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, “Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Methylone Into
Schedule I,” 78 Federal Register 21818-21825, April 12, 2013.
63 National Conference of State Legislatures, Synthetic Drug Threats, November 28, 2012, http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=
21398.
64 State of Maryland, General Assembly, Chapter 442 (Senate Bill 109), Approved by the Governor, May 16, 2013,
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov.
Congressional Research Service
11

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012
While drugs and substances can be scheduled administratively by the Attorney General and the
Secretary of HHS, through processes outlined in the CSA, they can also be scheduled directly
through congressional legislation. On July 9, 2012, the President signed the Synthetic Drug
Abuse Prevention Act of 2012—Subtitle D of Title XI of the Food and Drug Administration
Safety and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-144).65 The act added “cannabimimetic agents” to Schedule I
of the CSA. Under this act, a cannabimimetic agent is defined as one of five structural classes of
synthetic cannabinoids (and their analogues). The act also provided 15 specific examples of
cannabimimetic substances:
• 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497);
• 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol
(cannabicyclohexanol or CP-47,497 C8-homolog);
• 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018 and AM678);
• 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073);
• 1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019);
• 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200);
• 1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-250);
• 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (JWH-081);
• 1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-122);
• 1-pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-398);
• 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM2201);
• 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (AM694);
• 1-pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole (SR-19 and RCS-4);
• 1-cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (SR-18 and RCS-8); and
• 1-pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (JWH-203).
Of note, five of these substances66 were temporarily placed onto Schedule I of the CSA by the
DEA on March 1, 2011. On February 29, 2012, the DEA extended this temporary scheduling by
six months. These five substances would have been removed from Schedule I of the CSA at the
end of August 2012 if Congress had not legislatively scheduled these and other substances.
The Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 also added 11 synthetic stimulants and
hallucinogens to Schedule I of the CSA:
• 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone);

65 It was offered as an amendment (S.Amdt. 2146) to S. 3187.
66 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018); 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073); 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-
3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200); 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497); and
5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol or CP-47,497 C8-homolog).
Congressional Research Service
12

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

• 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV);
• 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-E);
• 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-D);
• 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-C);
• 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-I);
• 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-2);
• 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-4);
• 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H);
• 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)ethanamine (2C-N); and
• 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-P).
The Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 also extended the Attorney General’s
temporary scheduling authority. Prior to enactment of this act, the Attorney General (through the
DEA) was able to temporarily place a substance on Schedule I of the CSA for one year, with a
potential extension of six months. Now, once a substance is scheduled through this temporary
scheduling process, it may remain on Schedule I for two years. The Attorney General then has the
authority to keep the substance on Schedule I for an additional one year before it must be
removed or permanently scheduled.
Issues
Congress may confront several issues when considering whether to schedule certain synthetic
substances. These issues include potential implications on the federal criminal justice system, the
influence of research on scheduling, possible effects of scheduling on future medical research,
and the ability to use the Analogue Enforcement Act to enforce drug laws for synthetic substances
of concern.
Implications of Scheduling
The scheduling of controlled substances has implications for the would-be violators of the CSA,
as well as for the federal criminal justice system as a whole. Penalties for trafficking,
manufacturing, and possession of Schedule I controlled substances range from fines to life in
prison, depending on a number of factors pursuant to the crime. Factors considered in federal
sentencing include, but are not limited to, the amount of drugs that is involved in the crime, the
number of offenders, the type of drug, the number of prior offenses, and aggravating factors (e.g.,
death, weapons involved in the crime). For example, now that Congress has legislatively placed
MDPV onto Schedule I of the CSA, anyone convicted of simple possession of this substance is
subject to a minimum fine of $1,000 and could be imprisoned for up to one year.67 Of the inmates
residing in federal prisons as of July 2013, and for whom offense data are known, nearly half

67 21 U.S.C. §844(a).
Congressional Research Service
13

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

(89,669 or 46.8%) are serving sentences for federal drug offenses.68 And of the 25,367 federal
drug offenders known to have been sentenced for drug-related offenses, 6,134 were sentenced for
marijuana-related offenses and 4,936 were sentenced for methamphetamine-related offenses in
FY2012.69 It is unknown whether or how the relative number of drug-specific offenders may
change with the most recent addition of certain synthetic cannabinoids and stimulants to Schedule
I.
The growing federal prison population and prison crowding continue to concern the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) and policymakers. The number of inmates under BOP jurisdiction facilities grew
from 25,000 in FY1980 to 218,952 as of July 2013.70 From FY2000 to FY2012, prison crowding
grew from 32% over rated capacity to 38% over rated capacity, despite the fact that the number of
facilities operated by BOP increased from 97 to 119. The growing federal prison population has
not only resulted in more crowded prisons, but it has also strained BOP’s ability to properly
manage and care for federal inmates.71 Given that nearly half of the federal prison population is
incarcerated for drug-related offenses, Congress may question the potential effect on the prison
population and crowding now that it has scheduled additional substances. It is unknown whether
BOP, in the current fiscal environment, is able to accommodate increases in the number of
inmates.
Use of Research in Scheduling
There is consideration of drug research and data when the DEA and HHS seek to add a substance
to Schedules I-V of the CSA.72 As required by the CSA, a drug must be evaluated on its history
and current pattern of abuse; scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and risk to public health
factors in order to be eligible for temporary or permanent scheduling by the Attorney General.73
In the 2013 National Drug Strategy, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), notes
that synthetic cathinones and cannabinoids are understudied substances, and there is limited
research on these drugs.74 This lack of research may influence whether the Attorney General
(through the DEA) permanently schedules certain synthetic stimulants under the CSA. Of note,
while Congress has scheduled several substances commonly marketed as “bath salts,” (including
mephedrone and MDPV) Congress did not schedule the full array of substances that have been
and may be marketed as such (e.g., methylone). The DEA permanently scheduled methylone on

68 Federal Bureau of Prisons, Quick Facts about the Bureau of Prisons, July 27, 2013, http://www.bop.gov/about/
facts.jsp. While there were 218,952 individuals in federal prisons, 176,423 of these inmates were in Bureau of Prisons
facilities, 29,427 were in privately managed facilities, and 13,102 were in other contract facilities.
69 U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2012 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, Table 33, http://www.ussc.gov.
70 For more information regarding the growing federal prison population, see CRS Report R42937, The Federal Prison
Population Buildup: Overview, Policy Changes, Issues, and Options
, by Nathan James; Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Quick Facts about the Bureau of Prisons, July 27, 2013, http://www.bop.gov/about/facts.jsp.
71 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, FY2012 Performance Budget, Congressional Submission, Salaries
and Expenses
, http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2012justification/pdf/fy12-bop-se-justification.pdf; FY2013 Performance
Budget, Congressional Submission, Salaries and Expenses
, http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2013justification/pdf/fy13-bop-
se-justification.pdf; and FY2014 Performance Budget, Congressional Submission, Federal Prison System, Salaries and
Expenses
.
72 For more information on scheduling and the CSA, see archived CRS Report RL34635, The Controlled Substances
Act: Regulatory Requirements
, by Brian T. Yeh.
73 21 U.S.C. §811.
74 Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy 2013, p. 10, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
ondcp.
Congressional Research Service
14

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Schedule I in April 2013, and may still consider temporary and permanent scheduling of not-yet-
scheduled substances.
In contrast to what is required of HHS and the DEA, Congress is not statutorily required to
consider research and data in its decision to schedule a drug under the CSA. In the past, Congress
has exercised its scheduling authority by passing legislation to add drugs to the list of controlled
substances, and Congress has cited public safety interests as the reason for taking legislative
action. In 2000, for example, Congress passed legislation that provided for emergency scheduling
of gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), a synthetic stimulant also known as “liquid ecstasy.” In
doing so, Congress cited GHB as “an imminent hazard to public safety that requires immediate
regulatory action.”75
Congress may debate whether to exercise its authority and pass legislation to permanently
schedule certain synthetic drugs under the CSA. One related consideration is whether there is an
imminent threat such that immediate scheduling through legislation may be more effective than
the DEA and HHS carrying out the scheduling process laid out under the CSA. In doing so,
policymakers may also consider how to best evaluate whether a particular substance is an
imminent hazard or threat and whether Congress has reliable and valid standards for evaluating
the potential threats posed by each substance of concern.
In addition to considering legislative actions surrounding synthetic substances, Congress may
choose to exercise its oversight role in this area. Policymakers may evaluate whether the DEA
and HHS are effectively and efficiently evaluating each identified synthetic drug of concern and
subsequently taking appropriate action.
Future Medical Research
Another issue for consideration is future medical research involving synthetic drugs. There is
shared concern among researchers that adding certain synthetic substances to Schedule I could
hinder medical research. The CSA does not prohibit research with Schedule I controlled
substances, but it requires that researchers go through a registration process that involves
approval from their associated institutions, an external review board, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (under HHS), and the DEA.76 Congress may consider whether or not placing
certain synthetic drugs on Schedule I will hinder future research on these substances.
Controlled vs. Analogue Substances
As mentioned, the Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 treats controlled
substance analogues as Schedule I controlled substances under the CSA; however, this only
applies to analogues that are intended for human consumption. One possible barrier to
prosecuting individuals for violations relating to synthetic substances such as “bath salts” that are
marketed as “not intended for human consumption” may be proving that despite this labeling,
these substances are indeed intended for consumption.

75 P.L. 106-172.
76 21 CFR §1301.18.
Congressional Research Service
15

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

In addition, the Analogue Enforcement Act requires that a substance must be chemically similar
to a controlled substance in order to be considered an analogue. The DEA has noted that the
chemical structure of a substance can be manipulated such that it is not chemically similar to a
controlled substance but still produces effects that are pharmacologically similar to a Schedule I
or Schedule II controlled substance.77 These manipulations can continuously occur to stay ahead
of researchers and law enforcement.
The DEA has also pointed out several prosecutorial challenges for using the Analogue
Enforcement Act to prevent drug use and abuse. These challenges include the following:
• Each case requires additional investigation to determine whether the substance in
question was “intended for human consumption” and can therefore be considered
an analogue.
• A forensic chemist can testify to laboratory analysis that would identify a
controlled substance in a case; however, to establish that a substance is an
analogue, additional testimony from experts in other disciplines is needed.
• In cases involving potential analogue substances, experts must establish that the
substance has a substantially similar chemical structure (and pharmacological
effect) to a Schedule I controlled substance. The threshold for “substantially
similar” is subjective and may differ from expert to expert.
• Establishing a substance as an analogue in one case does not carry over to other
cases. Each case involving the potential analogue substance must separately
establish that the substance is indeed an analogue.78
While some may argue that the Analogue Enforcement Act is insufficient or too cumbersome to
investigate and prosecute cases involving the wide range of potential analogues, others may
disagree. On the one hand, scheduling each analogue substance under the CSA could allow more
efficient prosecution of cases involving that particular substance. On the other hand, as the DEA
and others have noted, the chemical structure of substances can be continuously manipulated,
thus constantly creating new analogue substances that are not scheduled under the CSA.
Policymakers may deliberate whether the pace of scientific research, drug scheduling by the
Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, and legislative scheduling by
Congress is sufficient in response to the current synthetic drug problem. Congress may also
consider whether the rapid creation of new analogues could outpace such scheduling, leaving the
Analogue Enforcement Act as a more efficient method of prosecution.
The DEA has led major enforcement efforts against the synthetic drug industry in 2012 and
2013.79 In July 2012, “Operation Log Jam” yielded the arrests of more than 90 individuals and the

77 Statement for the record of Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug
Enforcement Administration, before the U.S. Congress, United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics
Control, The Dangers of Synthetic Cannabinoids and Stimulants, 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 6, 2011,
http://drugcaucus.senate.gov/hearing-4-6-11/DEA%20_Rannazzisi_%20testimony.pdf; Statement of the Honorable
Michele Leonhart, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration before the United States House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, 113th Cong., 1st
sess., April 12, 2013, http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-113-ap19-wstate-leonhartm-20130412.pdf.
78 Ibid.
79 Enforcement efforts were conducted jointly with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with assistance from
the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Customs and Border
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

seizure of more than five million packets of finished synthetic designer drugs and the ingredients
to produce 13.6 million more packets.80 In June 2013, the DEA announced enforcement actions in
35 states “targeting the upper echelon of dangerous designer synthetic drug trafficking
organizations” as part of the cooperative operation, “Project Synergy.” According to the DEA,
these enforcement actions involved retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, and exposed “the
massive flow of drug-related proceeds back to countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.”81 Of
note, the DEA stated that a number of “Project Synergy” cases will be prosecuted under the
Analogue Enforcement Act.82
In considering enforcement challenges identified by the DEA, Congress may consider whether to
amend the CSA to better facilitate enforcement action against the illicit synthetic drug industry.
Two bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress83 that would address the enforcement and
prosecution challenges identified by the DEA:
• The Synthetic Abuse and Labeling of Toxic Substances Act of 2013 (S. 1322; the
SALTS Act) would amend the CSA so that additional factors may be considered
in determining whether a controlled substance analogue was intended for human
consumption.
• The Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2013 (S.
1323) would, among other things, redefine “controlled substance analogue” to
include “the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical
structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II,” and would make it illegal
to import a controlled substance analogue “unless the controlled substance
analogue is imported pursuant to such notification or declaration as the Attorney
General may by regulation prescribe.”



(...continued)
Protection, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations, and
state and local law enforcement agencies.
80 For more information, see U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Nationwide Synthetic Drug Takedown, DEA
News, July 26, 2012, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr072612.html.
81 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Updated Results from DEA’s Largest-Ever Global Synthetic Drug
Takedown Yesterday
, Headquarters News, June 26, 2013, http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/hq/2013/
hq062613.shtml.
82 Ibid.
83 In the 113th Congress, two other bills have been introduced that would address the synthetic drug issue. The
Synthetic Cathinones Control Act of 2013 (H.R. 315; introduced in January 2013) would, among other things, direct
the Attorney General to add certain synthetic drugs, including 3,4-methylenedioxymethcathinone (methylone), to
Schedule I of the CSA. As mentioned, in April 2013, the Attorney General took administrative action to permanently
place 3,4- methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone (methylone) on Schedule I of the CSA.
The Synthetics are Dangerous Act of 2013 (H.R. 2148; introduced in May 2013) would, among other things, amend the
purposes of the national youth anti-drug media campaign (as authorized under the Office of National Drug Control
Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998) to include encouraging parents and other interested adults to discuss with young
people the dangers of synthetic drug use.
Congressional Research Service
17

Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress

Author Contact Information

Lisa N. Sacco
Kristin Finklea
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy
Acting Section Research Manager and Specialist in
lsacco@crs.loc.gov, 7-7359
Domestic Security
kfinklea@crs.loc.gov, 7-6259


Congressional Research Service
18