According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 166 would have no significant fiscal impact on the State. While the bill expands the criminal offense of endangering a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual to include certain controlled substances listed in Penalty Group 1-B (such as fentanyl), the overall number of new cases generated by the change is expected to be relatively small. As a result, any increase in court costs, state jail sentences, or related expenses would be minimal and would not materially affect state revenue or expenditures.

Similarly, local governments, which would handle much of the enforcement, prosecution, supervision, and confinement associated with these offenses, are not expected to experience a significant fiscal impact. Local law enforcement agencies, county courts, and jails may see slight increases in workload or incarceration levels, but these are projected to be manageable within existing resources.

The overall conclusion is that HB 166's enhancements to criminal law would bolster protections for vulnerable individuals without imposing notable new financial burdens on state or local budgets.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 166. The legislation makes an important and timely update to Texas law by explicitly including fentanyl and other Penalty Group 1-B substances in the offense of endangering a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual. As highlighted in the bill analysis, the growing threat of fentanyl, responsible for over 2,000 deaths in Texas in 2023, has exposed gaps in current protections that HB 166 seeks to address. The bill strengthens the legal presumption of imminent danger when these substances are involved, better protecting vulnerable Texans from extreme risks of harm.

Importantly, the bill does not grow the size or scope of government. It does not create new agencies, grant expanded regulatory authority, or otherwise enlarge government operations. It does not increase the burden on taxpayers, with the Legislative Budget Board confirming that any fiscal impact to the state or local governments would be insignificant. Additionally, the bill does not increase regulatory burdens on individuals or businesses, as it targets only unlawful, criminal conduct involving controlled substances, not legitimate economic or personal activities.

HB 166 promotes critical liberty principles: safeguarding individual rights, reinforcing personal responsibility for criminal actions, and supporting limited, focused government action only where public safety demands it. Its narrowly tailored nature ensures that it responsibly addresses a serious public health threat without creating unintended consequences for taxpayers, businesses, or lawful citizens.

In conclusion, HB 166 should be strongly supported as a necessary, prudent measure that fortifies protections for Texas’s most vulnerable populations while respecting the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and personal liberty.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strongly supports individual liberty by protecting the inherent rights of children, elderly individuals, and disabled persons, groups that are often unable to protect themselves from serious harm caused by exposure to lethal substances like fentanyl. By presuming imminent danger when certain drugs are present, the bill reinforces the principle that all individuals have the right to safety, life, and bodily integrity.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility by ensuring that individuals who endanger vulnerable populations through illegal drug activity are held accountable. It sends a clear message that reckless behavior involving dangerous controlled substances will have legal consequences, aligning closely with the principle that individuals must be responsible for their actions, particularly when those actions harm others.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not infringe on legitimate economic activities or the rights of businesses. It targets only illegal drug-related conduct, meaning it leaves lawful business operations untouched. Thus, it does not restrict or burden free enterprise and maintains a clear focus on criminal activity rather than commercial regulation.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not diminish private property rights. It does not impose new restrictions on the use of property unless that property is being used to engage in illegal activities involving controlled substances. Protecting individuals from being endangered by illicit drug use near or within private property is a legitimate exercise of government authority that supports, rather than undermines, the right to safely enjoy private property.
• Limited Government: The bill represents a targeted and limited government intervention. It modifies an existing statute rather than creating new bureaucratic structures, programs, or broad regulatory schemes. It restricts government action to serious, clearly defined criminal conduct — namely, exposure of vulnerable individuals to highly dangerous substances — thereby respecting the ideal that government should act narrowly and only when necessary to protect citizens’ rights.

• SB 1234 (Same As)