Allows certain drug dealing offenses to be graded by "units," rather than weight, of controlled dangerous substances.
A679 would change how New Jersey grades certain drug manufacturing, distribution, dispensing, and possession-with-intent offenses under the controlled dangerous substances law. For selected drugs, prosecutors could charge offenses based not only on weight but also on the number of “units” involved, with a unit defined as the smallest discrete pill, tablet, capsule, vial, packet, fold, or similar packaging unit, or the amount commonly consumed at one time, whichever is less. The bill is aimed especially at substances that are difficult to measure by weight, such as LSD and methamphetamine, and it also applies the unit-based approach to heroin, cocaine, PCP, and related analogs.
The bill revises N.J.S.2C:35-2 and N.J.S.2C:35-5 to add the new unit definition and to create offense thresholds that can be met by either weight or unit count. In several cases, the unit thresholds would allow a higher degree of offense to be charged than under current weight-only rules, while leaving the existing mandatory minimum prison terms and fines in place. The bill does not change the grading scheme for marijuana and hashish, and it does not apply the unit measure to simple possession offenses; it is limited to distribution-related conduct and possession with intent to distribute.
A679 would also alter the heroin grading structure so that heroin is treated more severely at lower weights than under current law, based on the sponsor’s view that heroin has greater pharmacological effect per weight than cocaine. Under the bill, heroin distribution would reach first-degree status at one ounce or more, second-degree status at one-quarter ounce or more but less than one ounce, and third-degree status below one-quarter ounce, while cocaine thresholds remain unchanged. Similar unit-based thresholds would be added for LSD, PCP, and methamphetamine, including first-degree thresholds at 500 or more units for those substances.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly enforcement-oriented. The statement describes the measure as giving prosecutors an additional tool to more accurately grade street-level drug trafficking and packaging offenses, and it emphasizes that the bill is intended to close perceived gaps in the current weight-based system. No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or voting history to indicate broader support or opposition beyond the sponsor’s stated rationale.
The main point of contention likely concerns prosecutorial discretion and the possibility of higher charges based on unit counts rather than weight. Supporters would view the bill as a way to better capture the seriousness of packaged illicit drugs and substances sold in small discrete amounts, while critics may argue that it expands charging power and could increase exposure to higher-degree felony penalties, especially for heroin and other hard drugs. The bill also raises practical questions about how “units” would be measured and proved in court, and whether the new approach could produce more severe outcomes than the current weight-based framework.
The bill would amend New Jersey’s controlled dangerous substances definitions and drug distribution statute, N.J.S.2C:35-2 and N.J.S.2C:35-5, to authorize grading certain offenses by unit count as well as by weight. It would create a new statutory definition of “unit,” establish rules for when unit counts may be used in charging and grading, and adjust offense thresholds for heroin, cocaine, LSD, PCP, methamphetamine, and related analogs. The bill would not alter the grading of marijuana and hashish offenses or simple possession offenses, but it could increase the degree of offense charged for some distribution-related conduct and thereby affect sentencing exposure, fines, and parole ineligibility for affected defendants.
The bill appears to be framed positively by its sponsors as a targeted anti-trafficking measure that improves the fit between drug quantities and criminal grading. Its stated purpose is to give prosecutors a more accurate and flexible charging tool for substances commonly sold in discrete units rather than by weight. Because no committee testimony or vote history is available, there is no direct record of opposition or support in the provided materials, but the text itself suggests an enforcement-heavy, punitive approach rather than a reform-oriented one.
The likely controversy is whether allowing offenses to be graded by “units” will improve accuracy or instead broaden prosecutorial leverage and increase penalties. Supporters would argue that unit-based grading better reflects how drugs like LSD and methamphetamine are actually distributed and prevents undercharging when weight is a poor measure. Opponents may object that the bill could raise offense levels in more cases, especially for heroin, and that the unit definition may be subjective or difficult to apply consistently. The bill also preserves existing mandatory minimums while potentially expanding the range of conduct that reaches higher degrees of crime, which could be a significant point of concern for defense advocates and criminal justice reform groups.