GHB Charges and Schedule I Analogue Exposure.

GHB remains listed in federal Schedule I, the Schedule of controlled substances with “no currently accepted medical use” in the United States, except in the case of FDA-approved sodium oxybate products.

FDA-approved sodium oxybate is federally classified in Schedule III for FDA-approved medical use, and prescription status is generally limited to authorized prescriptions.

Along with this product-specific scheduling, federal analogue exposure can apply even when the drug substance charged does not have its own specific federal drug listing under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This is true in cases involving GHB analogues, and, in federal cases that allege unauthorized possession, dispensing, or prescription diversion, federal prosecutors are required to present evidence demonstrating that the drug substance in question satisfies the federal analogue criteria in 21 U.S.C. section 813.

Section 813 makes qualifying analogues “treated” as Schedule I substances at the federal level, even if the substances are not formally listed in the Schedule. This creates a complex federal law landscape with unique consequences for those facing allegations of GHB-related offenses, and federal defenses involving GHB analogues will often require a deep understanding of the chemical structure of the substances charged, the requirements of Section 813, and federal agents’ methods of collecting and storing evidence.

Which product and conduct facts expose an unscheduled GHB-related substance to federal charges?

As established above, federal criminal cases involving GHB analogues tend to involve two separate areas of the federal law. First, 21 U.S.C. § 841 addresses criminal cases involving manufacturing, dispensing, distributing, and possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute, and 21 U.S.C. § 844 separately addresses cases involving federal simple possession of controlled substances.

21 U.S.C. § 841 can apply in cases involving the provision of substances (or analogues) to other individuals. For instance, a defendant facing GHB or analogue charges in federal court may be targeted based on:

• Selling GHB analogues online, either within or across state lines
• Manufacturing and distributing GHB analogues to parties in other states
• Selling substances and marketing them as “bath salts” or “research chemicals,” but including instructions for use on humans
• Marketing and selling GHB analogues on social media and other platforms
• Dispensing GHB analogues through the USPS

While, as we have discussed above, cases involving federal analogue allegations also present distinct scientific disputes, they can also involve arguments over “human consumption.”

In order to establish a case for intent for human consumption, federal authorities will look to the conduct of the accused, and not just the label that is attached to the drug products that were involved in the alleged offense. Because, along with many other relevant facts and circumstances, the packaging labels of the drug products involved in a federal GHB prosecution will generally be deemed insufficient on their own to defeat the government’s claim of intent for human consumption.

Instead, the government will rely upon a combination of relevant facts and circumstances to infer intent to use on humans. Among these, the most common types of evidence relevant to the issue of human consumption include:

• Marketing GHB analogues, including their pricing, on the internet and social media
• Pricing information that strongly suggests the GHB analogues are meant for use on humans
• Communications between the accused and their customers or other relevant parties
• Past usage patterns, previous behavior, and testimony regarding GHB analogue exposure

How do conspiracy elements and digital conduct evidence shape a federal GHB case?

At the federal level, drug conspiracy liability is governed by the language of 21 U.S.C. section 846. This section provides that any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in the CSA subchapter is subject to the same penalties prescribed for the offense that was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. In a federal GHB prosecution, this section is relevant in a number of circumstances, as the government often files drug charges under the presumption that a defendant’s conduct can be characterized as a conspiracy to violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). With that in mind, establishing federal conspiracy liability involves satisfying a number of specific elements, and, as discussed above, this also means that prosecutors must meet several legal and factual requirements in order to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Relevant elements of a federal drug conspiracy prosecution involving GHB and GHB analogues include:

• Agreement between two or more individuals to violate the CSA: While establishing the existence of an agreement that involves prohibited drug conduct (or planning and planning that lead to such conduct) is key to any federal drug conspiracy prosecution, proving this element is often one of the more challenging aspects of a criminal case.
• Knowing participation by the defendant: In order to establish conspiracy liability under Section 846, federal prosecutors must prove not only that an unlawful agreement was made, but also that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy.
• Specific intent to pursue the unlawful objective: Drug conspiracy prosecutions generally require that the defendant acted with the specific intent to pursue the unlawful objective of the conspiracy, meaning that the government must prove not only the first two elements, but also that the defendant intended to help facilitate the alleged unlawful conduct.
• Reasonable foreseeability of the conspiracy’s unlawful conduct: Due to the doctrine of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the conspiracy, defendants can face criminal liability for the unlawful conduct of their co-conspirators if the conduct was “reasonably foreseeable” based on the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense.

While all of the foregoing elements are important in a federal drug conspiracy case, there are also important substantive distinctions between the general federal conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. section 371) and the federal drug conspiracy statute (21 U.S.C. section 846). The most significant of these is that, unlike under Section 371, a federal drug conspiracy conviction under Section 846 does not require proof of an overt act.

Spodek Law Group works out of offices in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and Los Angeles.

What can GHB quantity, enhancements, and first-response mistakes do to federal exposure?

While there are unique substantive, procedural, and constitutional issues involved in a GHB or analogue-related case, GHB prosecutions (and analogue cases) also involve a wide array of unique sentencing issues and federal consequences that can significantly alter the severity of the punishment that is on the table. With this in mind, federal prosecutors and their corresponding defense lawyers will often spend significant time and attention litigating the following issues in federal drug cases involving GHB and GHB analogues. As a result, potential defendants in cases involving the unauthorized manufacture, prescription, dispensing, and/or administration of GHB will need to work with their federal defense lawyers to build a sound strategy early in the process.

• Federal drug sentencing depends on the substance’s Schedule classification, quantity, the defendant’s criminal history, and the presence of particular statutory enhancers and/or safety valves, and, though not entirely accurate, this formula can often be confusing in federal practice.
• As a result, a substance’s Schedule classification alone will not determine the penalty on the table in every federal drug case. Although, in federal cases involving controlled substances subject to federal drug prosecution, this classification can play a critical role in establishing the substance’s unlawfulness for prescription, sale, and dispensing.
• Similarly, five-year and ten-year mandatory minimum sentences (though not exclusively) are common in federal prosecutions that depend on the statutory drug quantity involved in the allegedly unlawful conduct.
• On the other hand, Section 3553(f) (the so-called “safety valve”) provides relief in certain federal criminal cases. This applies only when five statutory requirements are met, and this relief is critical for those facing exposure under federal sentencing statutes.
• Finally, a government motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), rather than § 5K1.1 alone, may authorize a sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum; § 5K1.1 concerns a sentence below the otherwise applicable guideline range for substantial assistance. When these motions present an opportunity for a favorable disposition, it is imperative that the corresponding federal drug defense lawyer is prepared to use them to their client’s maximum benefit.

Why can California possession of GHB follow different elements and consequences than a federal case?

Under the principle of dual sovereignty, state and federal authorities may separately prosecute the same underlying conduct involving GHB. However, these authorities generally coordinate their prosecutions, though if criminal charges have been filed in state court, there still remains the possibility of the federal government filing parallel charges. This is especially true if the drug charges involve cross-state boundary sales or distribution.

Under California law, criminal possession of GHB and other controlled substances typically requires knowledge of the substance’s presence as well as knowledge of its character as a controlled substance. This requirement can differ from some federal law requirements and changes the evidence that prosecutors must present to prove guilt.

California courts also recognize the concepts of actual possession, constructive possession, and joint possession. These concepts each have different implications for the type of evidence needed to establish criminal culpability, and prosecutors will frequently rely on evidence of all three types of possession to demonstrate their case.

Under California Health and Safety Code Section 11350, possessing a controlled substance without a valid prescription, such as possession of GHB for nonmedical purposes, qualifies as an offense that can result in criminal liability. In state drug prosecutions involving GHB, the prosecution will typically need to establish that the drug has no accepted medical use under supervision, or it must establish the substance’s classification in the federal Schedule of Controlled Substances.

Finally, California Proposition 47 is another noteworthy factor, as many simple-possession offenses that previously carried felony penalties were re-characterized as misdemeanors, reflecting a broader shift toward rehabilitation and reducing the incarceration rate for drug offenses.

Calling About Someone You Love

Most first calls to a defense firm come from a family member rather than the person under investigation. If that is you, Spodek Law Group answers its phone at any hour, and families retain the firm on a relative's behalf every week. Reach it at 888 348 8028.