Vets warn scheduling xylazine as a controlled drug could hinder farm care; committee raises diversion and enforcement questions

The committee debated SB465, which would classify xylazine as a schedule 3 controlled substance. Representatives expressed mixed views: some argued scheduling could reduce street diversion, others said it would impose burdensome controls on veterinarians and farmers without necessarily eliminating illicit supply.

Dr. Nate Harvey, a large‑animal veterinarian, told the committee xylazine is "probably the single most common sedative I use for large animals," listing routine procedures—castration, twisted stomach surgeries, C‑sections and dehorning—that rely on the drug. He described the compliance burden of scheduling: double‑locked storage, camera surveillance, triplicate ordering forms and extensive recordkeeping. "If I now have to treat and purchase these products as I do with my controlled three substances...it will change my cost profile for farmers," he said, warning higher costs and administrative work could impede care on farms.

Committee members asked whether scheduling would reduce street availability or simply shift illicit markets. Dr. Harvey said tracking from manufacturers and distributors likely exists, but he did not identify a single diversion point; he recommended better tracking and supplier reporting as potential compromises rather than a broad scheduling step that would increase costs and regulatory friction for veterinarians and producers.

Representatives raised carve‑out and exemption questions. Members sought clarification about whether an exemption for licensed veterinarians could avoid the administrative burdens or whether scheduling as a class 3 would still force veterinarians to follow schedule‑3 controls. Committee staff agreed to research whether statutory scheduling could be crafted to limit harm to farm practice while addressing diversion.

No final vote was taken; several legislators said they were not prepared to exec the bill given unanswered questions about exemptions, the extent of local incidence, and the potential negative consequences for rural veterinary medicine.