Controlled substances: human chorionic gonadotropin.

Patterson’s proposal engages California’s controlled-substances framework to address human chorionic gonadotropin, with the author signaling an objective to remove hCG from Schedule III. The digest describing the bill presents this removal as the core aim, but the draft language as published preserves a carve-out for hCG within the provisions governing chorionic gonadotropin, rather than delivering a clear, unambiguous deletion from Schedule III.

In terms of the bill’s substance, the amended framework continues to define a broad Schedule III set of substances and then modifies the treatment of chorionic gonadotropin within that framework. The wording maintains a specific carve-out that excludes human chorionic gonadotropin from the rest of the chorionic gonadotropin-related listings, while other forms of chorionic gonadotropin and various anabolic steroids remain described within the Schedule III structure. The veterinary exemption referenced in the digest is not explicitly altered in the language shown, leaving its status to interpretation within the amended framework.

Key mechanisms and details include the overall categorization of stimulants, depressants, narcotics, and related substances that constitute Schedule III, alongside a targeted provision addressing chorionic gonadotropin and anabolic steroids. The draft does not introduce new enforcement provisions or explicit state appropriations, and it does not state an operative effective date within the text provided. The bill’s fiscal note is indicated as requiring committee review, but no explicit appropriation is included, and there is no transitional dating articulated in the language presented.

The broader implications hinge on how the carved-out language for hCG is interpreted in practice and how it aligns with federal scheduling conventions. Regulator guidance, law enforcement guidance, and medical or veterinary practice would rely on final enrolled text to determine whether hCG is fully exempt from Schedule III, remains implicitly governed through the carve-out, or is subject to a mixed regulatory posture. Given the drafting ambiguities evident in the published language, final language and any accompanying analyses will be essential to clarify the bill’s precise regulatory effect and the transitional steps, if any, required for implementation.