DRUGGED-DRIVING LEGISLATION A MISLEADING AND UNFAIR TACTIC TO GO AFTER OHIO
POT USERS

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.