Tuesday, February 8, 2005 A new incarnation of the drugged-driving legislation the Drug Policy Alliance worked to stop last year has been introduced in the Ohio Assembly, this time as House Bill 8 and Senate Bill 8. These bills would criminalize a motorist driving with any detectable amount of a drug or its metabolites (non-psychoactive compounds produced from the chemical changes of a drug in the body) in their urine or blood. A tremendous flaw in this approach is that current tests can only detect the presence of drugs in someone's system – not the amount or how long ago the drugs were used. A 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Transportation called State of Knowledge of Drug-Impaired Driving found that "current research does not enable one to predict with confidence whether a driver testing positive for a drug, even at some measured level of concentration, was actually impaired by that drug at the time of the crash. This is in sharp contrast to alcohol where BAC [Blood Alcohol Content] measurements can provide a good estimate of impairment." In addition to this lack of accuracy, the Ohio legislation also would create the risk of accidentally targeting medical marijuana patients, people who attended a concert and were in close proximity to people who smoked marijuana, or people who eat poppy seed bagels. Any of these scenarios could result in a positive drug test for someone who is not impaired while driving. Another concern about the legislation is funding - roadside drug testing is expensive and the program is likely to substantially increase Ohio's budget deficit. Other states are already stepping away from untenable drugged-driving legislation. For example, the Virginia House Courts of Justice Committee last Thursday amended their driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) bill, HB 1896, to exclude metabolites and only allow for the detection of parent drugs in the blood. The Ohio bills have hearings this week, and the Drug Policy Alliance is working to educate the media and state legislators about their numerous flaws. Link to article: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/020805ohduid.cfm
February 17, 2005 - Columbus, OH, USA \t Columbus, OH: The Ohio Senate voted 30-1 yesterday to approve legislation (SB 8) criminally sanctioning any person who operates a motor vehicle if trace levels of marijuana or non-psychoactive marijuana metabolites (compounds produced from the chemical changes of a drug in the body) are present in their blood or urine. NORML Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano strongly criticized the proposed legislation, which is scheduled to be debated in the House next week, arguing that it improperly defines and punishes sober drivers as if they are impaired. "Because marijuana's main metabolite, THC-COOH, remains detectable in certain bodily fluids, particularly urine, for days and sometimes weeks after past use, this legislation seeks to define sober drivers as if they were intoxicated," he said. "Someone who smokes marijuana is impaired as a driver at most for a few hours, certainly not for days or weeks. To treat all marijuana smokers as if they are impaired, even when the drug's effects have long worn off, is illogical and unfair." Similar laws classifying motorists who test positive for trace amount of illicit drugs or drug metabolites in their bodily fluids as criminally impaired have been enacted in twelve US states: Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wisconsin. In January, a German law defining motorists with any detectable level of drugs or marijuana (THC) in their blood as per se impaired was struck down by the German Supreme Court as unconstitutional. For more information, please contact Paul Armentano of NORML. Additional information on Ohio's proposed law is available online at: http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=6857541 Link to article: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6448
(Source: Dayton Daily News) 17 Feb 2005 COLUMBUS | The Ohio Senate on Wednesday approved and sent to the House legislation establishing legal standards for law enforcement officers to use in testing and charging individuals suspected of driving under the influence of drugs. Sen. Steve Austria, R-Beavercreek, the sponsor, said that while standards exist for determining driving under the influence of alcohol, there currently are no standards for determining the level of drugs such as marijuana and cocaine in an individual's system. Without an established level of impairment, cases against individuals charged with driving under the influence of drugs can vary from court to court, he said. The vote was 30-1, with Senate Minority Leader C.J. Prentiss, D-Cleveland, casting the only "no" vote. Penalties would not apply the law to a person who had obtained a controlled substance by a doctor's prescription and the person took the substance as prescribed. The bill would give law enforcement officers "the tools they need to bring drugged drivers to justice and make our roads safe," said Austria. [size=-1]Pubdate: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 Source: Dayton Daily News (OH) Copyright: 2005 Dayton Daily News Contact: edletter@daytondailynews.com Website: http://www.daytondailynews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/120 Author: William Hershey, Columbus Bureau[/SIZE]
By Paul Armentano Source: Athens News Imagine it was against the law to drive home after consuming a single glass of wine at dinner. Now imagine it was against the law to do so after having consumed a single glass of wine two weeks ago. Sound absurd? No more so than a proposal weaving its way through the Ohio Legislature that makes it a criminal offense for anyone to operate a motor vehicle if trace levels of marijuana or non-psychoactive marijuana metabolites (compounds produced from the chemical changes of a drug in the body) are present in their blood or urine. While the expressed purpose of House Bill 8 (and its companion bill, Senate Bill 8, which the Senate recently approved by a 30-1 vote) is to target and remove drug-impaired drivers from Ohio's roadways, the reality is that this poorly worded proposal would do little to improve public safety. Rather, it would falsely categorize sober drivers as "intoxicated" simply because they had consumed an illicit substance -- particularly marijuana -- some days or weeks earlier. A case in point: John and Jane Doe attend a party. John enjoys a glass of wine while Jane takes a puff from a marijuana cigarette. The next day, Jane is pulled over while driving. She is asked to submit to a urine test and tests positive for marijuana. Under Ohio's proposed law, Jane would be arrested for "driving under the influence of drugs," despite the fact that any impairment she experienced from smoking marijuana would have worn off hours earlier. That's because marijuana's main metabolite, THC-COOH, remains detectable in one's urine for days and sometimes weeks after past use. In addition, marijuana's primary intoxicating ingredient, THC, may remain detectable at low levels in the blood for up to 48 hours. At most, someone who smokes cannabis is impaired as a driver for only a few hours, certainly not for days or weeks. To treat all marijuana smokers as if they are impaired, even when the substance's psychoactive effects have long worn off, is illogical and unfair. In addition, Ohio already has sufficient laws on the books prosecuting and punishing drivers who operate a motor vehicle if they are "under the influence" of illicit drugs. Under Section 4511.19 of Ohio's Revised Code, motorists face up to six months in jail if they drive "while under the influence of a drug of abuse." By contrast, HB 8 seeks to create a new crime of "drugged driving" that is divorced from impairment and that would jail motorists for simply having consumed an illicit substance at some prior, unspecified date. While Ohioans certainly do not wish to condone illegal drug use, it's also clear that this proposal seeks to misuse the state's traffic-safety laws to target illicit drug use in general. At a minimum, Ohio's newly proposed law targeting drugged drivers should identify "parent drugs" (the identifiable psychoactive compound of a controlled substance), not inactive drug metabolites. Further, the law must enact scientifically sound cut-off levels that correlate drug concentrations in the blood to identifiable impairment of performance, similar to the 0.08 BAC standard that now exists for drunk driving. As presently written, HB 8 is neither a safe nor sensible way to identify impaired drivers; it is an attempt to misuse the traffic-safety laws in order to identify and prosecute marijuana smokers per se. We all support the goal of keeping impaired drivers off the road, regardless of whether the driver is impaired from alcohol or other drugs. Yet, HB 8 and its Senate companion bill neither addresses the problem nor offers a legitimate solution and should be rejected by Ohio's lawmakers. Editor's note: Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for NORML and the NORML Foundation in Washington, D.C. Complete Title: Drugged-Driving Legislation a Misleading and Unfair Tactic To Go After Ohio Pot Users Newshawk: Paul Armentano Source: Athens News, The (OH) Author: Paul Armentano Published: March 7, 2005 Copyright: 2005 Athens News Contact: news@athensnews.com Website: http://www.athensnews.com/ Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20338.shtml
Friday, March 11, 2005 Ohio's drugged driving bill, SB 8, looks likely to pass, but the Alliance is working to prevent some of its most egregious flaws from becoming reality. As it is currently written, the bill would establish unrealistic low “per se†limits, particularly for marijuana. This means that testing at or higher than any of the set levels would result in a “driving under the influence of drugs†charge. The drug test results alone would be “prima facie†proof of guilt - meaning that a person who tested at or above the limit would have no defense. At a hearing this week, representatives from the Alliance and groups such as the Ohio Defense Bar and NORML testified against many provisions of the bill. They pointed out that a major flaw of SB 8 is its assertion that a person who fails a roadside drug test is necessarily driving in an impaired condition - a conclusion that is not always true because metabolites can remain in the body long after a drug is consumed. They emphasized as well that with the exception of alcohol, government agencies (such as the National Institute on Drug Abuse) and forensic scientists agree that there is no reliable correlation between the amount of drugs or metabolites in the body and driving impairment. Further, the bill does not address impairment from prescription drugs, which studies show are responsible for more accidents than any recreational drugs except alcohol. The witnesses, who also included a cancer patient who uses marijuana, discussed several other flaws in SB 8 as well, all with a view to educating legislators on the shortcomings of this legislation and potentially revising some of the most problematic provisions of the bill. Link to article: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/031105ohduid.cfm