Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8839

Bill Overview

Title: Protecting Kids from Candy-Flavored Drugs Act

Description: This bill establishes enhanced criminal penalties for certain federal drug offenses involving the manufacture or distribution of candy-flavored controlled substances or similar products for minors. Specifically, the bill imposes enhanced criminal penalties for a federal drug offense that involves manufacturing, creating, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II that is combined with a candy or drink, marketed to appear similar to a candy or drink, or modified by flavoring or coloring to appear similar to a candy or drink. To be subject to an enhanced penalty, the individual must have knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the controlled substance will be distributed, dispensed, or sold to an individual who is under 18 years of age.

Sponsors: Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN-3]

Target Audience

Population: Children and surrounding communities affected by candy-flavored drugs

Estimated Size: 75000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Student (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 9 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it's good they are trying to stop bad candies so we won't eat them by mistake.
  • I feel safe because I trust my parents and teachers to keep bad stuff away.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 7

Teacher (Austin, TX)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Enhancing penalties could deter some from targeting minors with dangerous substances, which is really important.
  • I hope this means children will have fewer exposure risks.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 6

Pharmaceutical Expert (New York, NY)

Age: 46 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy seems to close some loopholes but the real impact depends on effective enforcement.
  • Flavored drugs are a smart target but we must avoid unintended burdens on legal industries.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 5

Law Enforcement Officer (Denver, CO)

Age: 29 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Being able to impose harsher penalties for candy-flavored drugs should incrementally decrease the cases we see.
  • It's a step in the right direction but requires comprehensive strategy around it.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Public Health Official (Chicago, IL)

Age: 54 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policing candy-flavored drugs is crucial for youth safety but must be paired with educational outreach.
  • Policy alone won't solve every problem; it’s about a societal shift in how we view youth drug safety.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

College Student (Miami, FL)

Age: 19 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Better policies on flavored drugs help protect younger kids.
  • We need more education in schools about why these substances are bad.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 7 6

Retired (Rural, IA)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Anything that keeps drugs away from kids is worthwhile; my grandkids’ safety is my priority.
  • Policy implementation in rural areas can be challenging but certainly necessary.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 5

Substance Abuse Counselor (Seattle, WA)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The increased penalties hopefully curb some of the flavored drug distributions.
  • Support systems alongside tough laws make long-term differences in rehabilitating young offenders.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Parent (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This gives me more peace of mind knowing there are efforts to target dangerous substances made for kids.
  • Community and state should also work to spread awareness and support beyond just law enforcement.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 8 7

Attorney (Philadelphia, PA)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Enhanced penalties must be balanced with fair trials and due process to avoid victimizing the innocent.
  • There are concerns about disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)

Year 3: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)

Year 5: $19000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $24000000)

Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)

Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)

Key Considerations