Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
124 th General Assembly of Ohio
|
BILL: |
DATE: |
||||
|
STATUS: |
SPONSOR: |
||||
|
LOCAL IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIRED: |
|
||||
|
CONTENTS: |
Expands the definition of
"harmful intoxicants" to include the chemicals gamma butyrolactone
and 1,4 butanediol |
|
STATE FUND |
FY 2002 |
FY 2003 |
FUTURE YEARS |
||
|
General Revenue Fund |
|||||
|
Revenues |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
|||
|
Expenditures |
Potential minimal increase |
Potential minimal increase |
Potential minimal increase |
||
|
State
Bureau of Motor Vehicles Fund (Fund 4W4) |
|||||
|
Revenues |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
||
|
Expenditures |
Potential negligible
increase |
Potential negligible increase |
Potential negligible increase |
||
|
Victims
of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) |
|||||
|
Revenues |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
||
|
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
||
Note: The state fiscal year is July 1 through June 30. For
example, FY 2002 is July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002.
·
As
a result of the bill, a few more offenders may be sentenced to prison or
sentenced to prison for longer stays, the fiscal effect of which would be to
create, at most, a minimal annual increase in the Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction’s GRF-funded incarceration and post-release control costs.
·
The
State Bureau of Motor Vehicles may incur a negligible burden related to
handling a few additional license suspensions and reinstatements each year and
may gain a negligible amount of revenue for its State Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Fund (Fund 4W4) from the collection of an existing $30 license reinstatement
fee.
·
Given
the relatively small number of additional or enhanced convictions expected, the
potential annual gain in court cost revenue deposited to the credit of the
state’s GRF and Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402) would be
negligible.
|
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2001 |
FY 2002 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|||
|
Counties |
||||||
|
Revenues |
Potential gain, minimal at most |
Potential gain, minimal at most |
Potential gain, minimal at most |
|||
|
Expenditures |
Potential increase,
minimal at most |
Potential increase, minimal at most |
Potential increase, minimal at most |
|||
Municipalities |
||||||
|
Revenues |
Potential loss, minimal at most |
Potential loss, minimal at most |
Potential loss, minimal at most |
|||
|
Expenditures |
Potential decrease,
minimal at most |
Potential decrease, minimal at most |
Potential decrease, minimal at most |
|||
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
The
bill may elevate some misdemeanor drug offenses that would have been handled by
municipal and county courts into felony drug offenses that would be handled by
common pleas courts, and may create some new felony drug offense cases. The
fiscal effect of these possibilities might be to decrease annual municipal
criminal justice expenditures and increase annual county criminal justice
expenditures. The number of affected criminal cases, however, should be small
enough that any changes in annual county or municipal criminal justice
expenditures would be, at most, minimal.
·
As
a result of the possibility that some existing drug offense cases may be
elevated from being handled as a misdemeanor to a felony and that some new
felony drug offense cases may be created, counties may gain court cost and fine
revenue and municipalities may lose court cost and fine revenue. Given that the
number of criminal cases that will be affected or created by the bill is
expected to be fairly small, the possible gain in annual court cost and fine
revenue for counties should be minimal at most and the potential loss in annual
court cost and fine revenue for municipalities should be no more than minimal,
if that.
|
|
The bill adds gamma butyrolactone (GBL), a chemical that is also marketed as a dietary supplement, and 1,4 butanediol (BD), an industrial chemical that is contained in products used for their body building effects, to the list of “harmful intoxicants.” When either of these chemicals is taken to induce intoxication, it converts (i.e. metabolizes) in the body to become GHB, also known as the “date rape drug.” Because of their legitimate uses, however, the bill does not propose to include these two chemicals as a schedule I controlled substance, which would carry more severe sanctions than are imposed for harmful intoxicants.
Little is known about what might be termed less than legitimate uses of GBL and BD in Ohio, which typically includes their use as a “club drug” at dance parties and raves. Also unclear is how their use is being handled by local jurisdictions statewide in the context of existing arrests and prosecutions for various drug offenses. For example, conversations with the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office indicate that their number of GHB-related cases increased from 2 to as many as 75 cases in the last year. Of the 75 cases, 3 involved GBL. Conversely, the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office reports just 1 GHB case in the last year.
National statistics indicate that there have been 55 reported cases involving GBL, and the Federal Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations has obtained over 33 GHB-related convictions nationwide.
From this rather limited data and sample of local prosecutorial experiences in Ohio, LSC fiscal staff expect that the bill: (1) may elevate some misdemeanor drug offense cases to felony status and may create some new felony drug offense cases, and (2) the number of those drug offense cases will be relatively small.
Abusing a harmful intoxicant
is a misdemeanor of the first degree, and a felony of the fifth degree on
second and subsequent offenses. Trafficking in harmful intoxicants is a felony
of the fifth degree and a felony of the fourth degree on second and subsequent
offenses.
The
bill will likely create new felony drug cases that would be handled by common
pleas courts and is also likely to elevate some drug cases that are currently
being prosecuted as misdemeanors in municipal and county courts to felony
status. Such outcomes may decrease municipal criminal justice expenditures, as
some cases would be kicked up to the county-operated felony system and increase
county criminal justice expenditures. In addition, municipalities may lose some
court cost and fine revenue and counties may gain some court cost and fine
revenue. Given LSC fiscal staff believe that the number of affected criminal
cases should be fairly small, any changes in county and municipal revenues and
expenditures would be, at most, minimal.
As
a result of the bill, it is possible that a few offenders will be sentenced to
prison or sentenced to prison for a longer stay, the fiscal effect of which
would be to increase the Department of Rehabilitation & Correction’s annual
incarceration and post-release control costs. LSC fiscal staff believe,
however, that the number of affected offenders will be so small that any
increase in the department’s annual expenditures would be minimal at most.
In addition to any fines and
local court costs, those convicted must pay state court costs, which are
collected by the local jurisdictions. State court costs for a felony conviction
total $41 ($30 for the Victims of Crime Fund and $11 goes to the GRF). State
court costs for a misdemeanor conviction total $20 ($9 for the Victims of Crime
Fund and $11 goes to the GRF). Given the relatively small number of additional
or enhanced convictions expected, as well as the problematic nature of
collections, the potential annual revenue gain to the state’s GRF and Victims
of Crime Fund would be negligible.
Existing law would also
require a court to suspend for not less than six months or more than five years
the driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit of any person convicted
of or who has pled guilty to the offenses of abusing or trafficking in harmful
intoxicants. As a result of the bill, LSC fiscal staff expect that a few more
licenses or permits will be suspended annually, which creates an administrative
burden for the State Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) that handles the license
suspension and reinstatement process. Under existing law, BMV would collect a
$30 fee to reinstate that license or permit. Given the small number of
suspensions expected annually, the potential administrative burden on BMV
should be negligible and the amount of license reinstatement fee that would be
collected and deposited in the State Bureau of Motor Vehicles Fund (Fund 4W4)
should not exceed negligible either.
LSC fiscal staff: Holly Simpkins, Budget Analyst
\\Budget_office\isis_vol1.lbo\FN124\HB0273IN.doc