Controlled substances: enhancements.
The bill seeks to provide stricter penalties for distribution of fentanyl and its analogs, acknowledging the escalating issue of synthetic opioid abuse and its consequential injuries. By holding individuals accountable for the physical suffering of their drug recipients, AB 367 attempts to address the public health crisis linked to these substances. Moreover, it does not mandate reimbursement for local agencies under California's Constitution, as the only incurred costs will be associated with the enforcement of these newly defined penalties within existing legal frameworks.
Assembly Bill 367 aims to amend Section 12022.7 of the Penal Code, specifically relating to enhancements for individuals who inflict great bodily injury during the commission of felonies. The bill proposes that if a person sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away a controlled substance such as fentanyl or its analogs, and the recipient suffers significant physical injury, the offenders will face an additional and consecutive prison term of three or five years, effective until January 1, 2029. This amendment will expand the definition of 'great bodily injury' to include harmful effects from the use of these particular substances.
The commentary surrounding AB 367 reflects a supportive sentiment among lawmakers and advocacy groups focused on addressing the fentanyl crisis. Supporters argue that enhancing penalties will deter potential offenders from engaging in drug distribution practices that lead to significant injury or death among users. However, there is a valid concern among critics regarding how these enhanced penalties might affect juvenile offenders, as the bill explicitly states that its provisions do not apply to them, sparking discussions about the fairness and efficacy of punitive measures in the rehabilitation of young individuals.
Despite broad support, the bill does face opposition highlighting the potential for exacerbating existing systemic issues within the criminal justice system. Critics worry that increasing prison sentences may not effectively curtail opioid abuse and could further entrench vulnerable populations in a cycle of incarceration. The significant emphasis on punitive measures without concurrent support for treatment and prevention programs poses a challenge to the bill, as some argue that a balanced approach, combining accountability with rehabilitation, might yield better public health outcomes.