HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12161986 - 2.11 To': BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Phil Batchelor Contra
County Administrator Costa
DATE . December 11, 1986 County
SUBJECT: Sale and Use of Alkyl Nitrites (Poppers)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Agree to take no action to attempt to regulate the sale and
use of alkyl nitrites (poppers) pending the outcome of
litigation involving the attempt on the part of Los Angeles
County to regulate the sale and use of alkyl nitrites.
2 . Request County Counsel to report to the Board on the outcome
of the litigation involving the attempt on the part of the
County of Los Angeles to regulate the sale and use of alkyl
nitrites.
BACKGROUND:
On November 4, 1986, the Board agreed to withhold action on any
decision to regulate the sale and use of alkyl nitrites in the
unincorporated area of the County until this office and County
Counsel were able to evaluate the effect on such proposed
regulation of the recent federal drug control legislation as well
as legislation enacted by the State Legislature relating to the
same subject. We have now completed that review.
County Counsel indicates that after a review of SB 1928 ( Chapter
1181, Statutes of 1986) , and a summary of the federal drug
legislation, the Board of Supervisors appears to have sufficient
discretion to allow the Board to regulate the sale and use of
alkyl nitrites in the unincorporated area of the County, if the
Board wishes to do so. SB 1928 simply requires the posting of a
warning sign indicating that the use of alkyl nitrites may be
harmful to an individual' s health. The federal legislation only
requires a study of alkyl nitrites to determine the extent and
nature of their use; whether their use conforms to the advertised
purpose for which the item is sold, and to what extent alkyl
nitrites present a health risk.
While County Counsel indicates that recent legislation does not
infringe on the Board' s right to regulate alkyl nitrites, they
also caution that a lawsuit has been filed in Superior Court in
Los Angeles County challenging the Los Angeles County ordinance
banning the sale or use of alkyl nitrites.
//n�The
Los Angeles
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: /f(//s'�p
X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER)/�
SIGNATURE(SI: /4y&4& zV&
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 16, 1906 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. p
CCI County Administrator ATTESTED _ Azt/
County Counsel
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Sheriff-Coroner SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Health Services Director
M382/7-83 BY- tv a0v DEPUTY
Page 2
County ordinance appears to be identical to the type of
regulation originally contemplated by the Board. This office
would suggest that rather than adopting an ordinance at this time
which might generate a lawsuit similar to the Los Angeles County
one, it would be prudent to take no action and await -the outcome
of the Los Angeles County suit. If the courts uphold the right
of the county to ban the sale and use of alkyl nitrites, the
Board can then make a policy decision as to whether they wish to
do so. If , however, the courts interpret the existing law as
having preempted local regulation of alkyl nitrites, then County
Counsel will be in a position to provide the Board with more
definitive information on the Board' s available options.
Both the Sheriff-Coroner and the Concord Police have indicated
that the sale and use of alkyl nitrites do not currently present
a law enforcement problem to them and that, therefore, there
appears to be no pressing need to regulate their sale and use
until the Board' s authority to do so has been clearly established
in court.