PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 24, 2014
Reclassification to Ensure Smarter and Equal Treatment Act of 2014 or the RESET Act - Amends the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to reduce penalties (to not greater than a one-year term of imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine) for simple possession of a controlled substance by a person who has one or more prior convictions for a controlled substance offense. Repeals a provision providing for up to three years' imprisonment for the possession of flunitrazepam. Reduces the maximum term of imprisonment (to one year) for the sale, use of the mails to transport, or importation or exportation of drug paraphernalia.
Eliminates provisions of the CSA and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act that apply the same penalties applicable to offenses involving a specified amount of a substance containing cocaine to offenses involving a lesser amount of a substance containing cocaine base.
Amends the CSA to provide that in determining the weight of a controlled substance or mixture of controlled substances that is in a compound with a food product for purposes of provisions concerning controlled substance offenses, the weight of the food product shall not be included.
People & committees
Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2657 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2657 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2657 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2657 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.