Senate committee amends bill to create screening process for recreationally sold substances; questions raised on scope and costs

A Senate committee on Wednesday amended and reported Senate Bill 2354, a bill that would create a screening program for recreationally used or abused substances sold in retail outlets, and referred it out of committee after lawmakers added a reverse-repealer amendment and discussed implementation concerns.

The committee chair said the bill was recommended by medical providers and aims to screen certain products being sold in convenience stores and similar retailers. The chair noted some of these products have been linked to adverse reactions and that local law enforcement has expressed concern about their availability.

Senators questioned what products would be covered. One senator asked whether hemp products would be included; the chair responded that hemp was “not necessarily” included and described the bill as applying to substances used at a recreational level and associated with abuse. Another senator said the purpose section (Section 2b) names some over-the-counter items but cautioned that the Department of Health may not have the capacity to run a program of the bill’s magnitude without dedicated funding.

Senator Sparks criticized overly broad coverage, saying he did not want the health department “deciding how big my Coca Cola is because that's not good for me either,” and added that he does not think people should “shop for your medicine at the convenience store.” Another senator, citing law enforcement, said testing suspected retail products is expensive for local labs and that those products are a major current concern, especially for youth.

Committee members discussed adding implementation details, including whether the Department of Health could collect fees for testing or applications and whether delayed implementation would allow rulemaking before program start. The committee approved an amendment to add a reverse repealer; a senator moved the amendment, members approved it by voice vote, and the chair said the bill would be considered amended. Later the committee moved that the bill title was sufficient and approved sending the bill out of committee.

The transcript records discussion about scope, testing costs, and administrative capacity but does not include a roll-call vote or any agency estimate of testing fees. The bill was amended in committee and reported out for further legislative consideration.