Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and health advocates urge council to pull AB 10 88 from consent calendar, warn banning '7‑O' could drive users to illicit markets
Summary
Multiple public‑comment speakers urged the council to pull an item described in the transcript as "AB 10 88" from the consent calendar and to allow education about products speakers call "7 O/7OH/H7 hydroxi," arguing a ban would push users to illicit markets.
Public comment at the Los Angeles City Council meeting focused heavily on a Sacramento measure referred to in the transcript as "AB 10 88" and on a product the speakers variously called "7 O," "7OH" or "H7 hydroxi." Multiple speakers asked the council to remove the item from the consent calendar, to delay action and to permit outreach and education about the substances before supporting any prohibition.
Dr. Jane Ross, appearing as a neuroscientist and an adviser to a Los Angeles‑based nonprofit she identified as the Seven Hope Alliance, argued the "resolution to approve AB 10 88 is wrong." She warned that an outright prohibition of "7 O" would drive users to the illicit market, increasing opioid deaths. In the transcript she said, "La resolución para aprobar AB 10 88 está equivocado." Dr. Ross also said roughly "236000 people, approximately, in California use 7 O," and said the product is used for pain relief.
Other speakers echoed those concerns: a person identifying themselves as having Crohn’s disease described finding relief with the product and urged the council to consider alternatives if access were restricted; Jackie Subek, introduced as the founder of the Seven Hop Alliance Foundation, asked the council to pull the Sacramento bill from the consent calendar and to allow the organization an opportunity to educate the council about the products and users they say rely on them. Multiple commenters who said they use the product said it helped them remain stable and that prohibition would push people to the illicit market.
What the record does not show: no supporting packet, scientific review, public‑health department analysis or formal ordinance text was presented in the transcript. The bill number is recorded in the transcript as "AB 10 88"; the council or staff did not read explanatory legislative text in the excerpt provided and did not present a departmental recommendation during the public comments captured here.
Speakers and affiliations listed in the transcript said the product is used by veterans and people with chronic pain, and several urged the council to avoid a summary consent vote until the city had received more information and had hosted education sessions with proponents.
