CBS Boston

New Massachusetts “Designer” Drug Law Could Create Confusion

August 14, 2015

The Massachusetts legislature has recently adopted a definition of controlled substances that includes “controlled substance analogues,” or what is commonly known as “designer drugs.” The Massachusetts law is modeled on a similar Federal law that has already been put into place. This added definition would make criminalize analogues in the same way that the named controlled substances are criminalized, such as possession of the substance or distribution of the substance.

A controlled substance analogue is a substance that is similar in chemical structure and psychological effect to an existing controlled substance but has not yet been listed as a controlled substance. So in the statute, the analogues are not specifically listed by any name but are generally defined as a substance “substantially similar” to other controlled substances already listed.

The way the statute is written, a two-prong test is created for proving an analogue. First, the analogue (or “designer drug”) must be structurally similar to a controlled substance. “Structurally similar” essentially means that its chemistry must be very closely related. The second prong can be proven in one of two ways. One, the analogue causes a substantially similar or greater effect on the user as the named controlled substance. Or two, the analogue was represented to have or intended to have a similar effect on the user as the named controlled substance.

This addition to the controlled substance statute will cause a whole host of problems for police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and most importantly, defendants.

One problem is how do you prove that an analogue has a “structurally similar” makeup to a named controlled substance? (And a whole separate problem is what named controlled substance will the analogue be tested against since there are numerous possibilities?) This is obviously going to require an expert in chemistry to test how similar the alleged analogue and the named controlled substance are. This will be a time-consuming and costly process for both the government and defendants. The need for an expert puts defendants who cannot afford to pay in a highly disadvantaged position when up against a big government budget. Since there is no scientific definition for what “substantially similar” means, the case could come down to one expert’s opinion versus another expert’s opinion. What method of testing the expert(s) utilize is also a problematic area with no right or wrong answer right now.

Another problem is how do you prove that the analogue has a substantially similar or greater effect on the user (the first part of the second prong)? A few ways that have been suggested are having a witness testify who has experienced the analogue’s effects first-hand or have a scientist testify that a substance with similar properties would likely have a similar effect. A similar problem is how do you prove that the defendant represented or intended the alleged analogue to have a similar effect on the user (the second part of the second prong)? This is what is known as the “knowledge” element of the alleged offense. What knowledge of the analogue does the defendant have to have to be guilty? Does he need to know its chemical structure or is knowledge that this drug is “bad” good enough? Federal courts have split on this when deciding cases under the model federal law.

The last problem I want to talk about and what I personally think is the most important issue is whether this law is constitutional. There is a strong argument that this statute is too vague, and therefore unconstitutional. “Due process requires that a criminal statute provide adequate notice to a person of ordinary intelligence that his contemplated conduct is illegal, “for no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.'” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 77 (1976). Would the average Joe know what substances are and are not prohibited? If the average person would not know, the law must be void for vagueness. If scientific experts might disagree about whether an analogue is “substantially similar” to a controlled substance, how is an ordinary person supposed to know? I don’t believe that under the Constitution a gut feeling that something may be “bad” and therefore illegal is enough.

I’m sure that once cases begin to be prosecuted under Massachusetts’s new legislative definition, courts will begin to answer some of the questions I have asked above. If you find yourself charged with a drug crime or any crime in Massachusetts, call our office immediately for a free consultation:


Client Reviews
"Ben Urbelis recently represented me in an OUI case in which I had crashed my car. I honestly did not believe I had any chance of beating it, but fortunately for me Ben was outstanding and all charges were dropped. In my first hearing he was calm, assertive and straight to the point. I was extremely impressed and satisfied. I left my hearing feeling confident that I had made the right choice of hiring him. I am positive I would have lost this case and walked away with an OUI if I hadn't. I am very happy with how he handled my case and how reassured I felt having him as my lawyer." MC
"When I found myself charged with my 3rd DUI I was certain without a doubt that I was facing 6 months to 2 1/2 years in state prison. I can’t believe you were able to guide me calmly through the whole nerve wracking process, never sugar coating anything, staying honest and always keeping me informed the whole time. I still can’t believe that in the end you pulled off a miracle to avoidany jail time. I would recommend you to anyone in the same situation. Thank you so much. You saved me.” JL
"I want to personally thank Ben and his wonderful a staff at Urbelis Law for what an outstanding job they did for my son and his friends! Ben went above and beyond for them, with a successful outcome. I would highly recommend Ben to anyone that would need his services, he was wonderful!" Gina
"Huge thank you to not only my friend, but my lawyer,Ben Urbelis..I presented him with a case that at first was a bit tricky on paper... but we worked hard together and got all information we needed to prove i was innocent! He knew from the get go a year ago that he was gonna smash this case, and he did!! Cant thank you enough man! If anyone needs a lawyer, hes your guy... no question" PB
"Thank you for your excellent representation in this matter. Coming from out of town, it wasreassuringto have an attorney who was so well organized and on top of the process. It was very clear that the judge was not only familiar with you, but had a great deal of respect for you in the courtroom. I appreciate all the effort you put into my case, and thank you again for a successful representation!" RC