LAWMAKERS AIMING FOR 'ZERO TOLERANCE' OF POT-SMOKING DRIVERS

As the federal government continues to prod states into passing or
improving their Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) laws, or
potentially face significant hits to future federal financing for
highways, Ohio marijuana activists are asking how many more teeth will
the law have?

An enhanced drug-driving law for Ohio, marijuana activists concede, is
a certainty for the near future. Two federal bills "encouraging"
states to crack down on drug driving are currently being floated on
Capitol Hill.

One bill, introduced earlier this month in Cincinnati by Hope Taft and
U.S. Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, encourages states to adopt a
"zero-tolerance" blood-level measure to combat drugged driving while
also securing funding to fight the war on drugs. In comparison,
alcohol has .08 blood-level requirement for adults' arrest in nearly
every state. That level equates to several beers or drinks over two to
four hours for a normal-sized person.

The other bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nevada, on March
4, again encourages states to enhance their drug-driving laws by 2006
or lose 1 to 50 percent of federal highway funds allocated from 2007
through 2013. This bill also calls for mandatory minimums for those
convicted.

Already, the bills have inspired state-level officeholders to act.

In Ohio, two high-ranking Republican state senators have introduced
Senate Bill 215. The bill calls for a zero-tolerance level, making it
a criminal offense if a driver has "any amount of a controlled
substance or a metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's
whole blood, blood serum or plasma, or urine."

In other words, officers and prosecutors can demand drug screenings
for those pulled over for a moving violation. Thus, if a partygoer
took a puff of a marijuana "blunt" at the weekend party, considering
THC metabolites can remain in one's system for several days, he or she
could potentially be busted while driving to work the following week.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol has publicly said a level of zero will
make it easier to prove in court if someone was drugged driving.

Others worry about the fairness of the stricter laws.

"First of all, I think it's a huge violation of your privacy," said
Thomas Simon, president of the Ohio University student group, Students
for Sensible Drug Policies. OU's SSDP chapter is part of a "a national
watchdog effort" to educate students about unfair drug policies.

"They want to take a blood test and discover marijuana that you smoked
two weeks ago? This is definitely an attack against marijuana
smokers," added Simon.

Co-sponsors of the Ohio bill are Majority Whip Jeff Jacobson, R-Butler
Township, and Steve Austria, R-Beavercreek, who heads the Senate
Judiciary Committee, which deals with the state's criminal laws.

The federal bills are mobilizing pro-marijuana activists on a national
level as well. Many believe the law is another attempt to crack down
on the nation's marijuana smokers, who number somewhere between 8 and
10 million.

Since the late 1990s, several states have passed "zero-tolerance per
se" statutes similiar to the bill introduced in Ohio. Zero tolerance
per se laws, however, do have a measurable standard. In Nevada, for
example, if a driver's blood is found to be under 3 nanograms per
milliliter of THC, the driver is not considered impaired.

That's the significant difference between Ohio's bill and Nevada's
law: The Ohio bill is strictly zero tolerance, confirmed an aide from
Austria's office.

This amounts to arbitrary discrimination, according to opponents of
zero tolerance drugged-driving laws.

"Cannabis consumers need to be aware that these kind of 'zero
tolerance' laws have nothing to do with public safety or whether
someone is driving impaired, and everything to do with
discrimination," charged Mikki Norris, director of the Cannabis
Consumers Campaign, a California-based movement lobbying for the civil
rights of marijuana smokers. "Drugged-driving laws base someone's
guilt on the mere presence of THC in one's body and have nothing to do
with the offense for which the person is being charged."

Yet in Nevada, the law has not caused the public uproar some marijuana
activists predicted. Nevada's law was inspired in part by the tragic
story of Jessica Williams, now serving a lengthy DUID and manslaughter
sentence for driving into and killing six teenagers in 2001. Williams
tested positive for marijuana but argues in her appeal that she wasn't
high at the time of the accident.

"Can Nevada police require that you go to the station for a drug
screen, hold your arm down and require you to take a blood test? Yes
they can," said Omar Sofradzija, a traffic reporter for the Las Vegas
Review-Journal.

But has the law been vigorously enforced, with scores of sober people
saying they were strong-armed into getting needled, and subsequently
suffering through the ordeal that's akin to a drunk-driving conviction?

"We really haven't heard all that much," Sofradzija said about public
complaints of sober drivers being arrested for having illegal drug
metabolites in their system.

Police officers in Las Vegas, said Sofradzija, are using discretion.
They're applying traditional DUI tactics such as using smell and sight
to nab offenders, he said. He suggested, for example, that if a van is
pulled over for driving erratically and also reeks of freshly smoked
pot, the driver probably will win himself a ride in the back seat of a
police cruiser.

Jennifer Knight, spokesperson for Nevada's Committee to Control and
Regulate Marijuana, said her group hasn't heard of any serious
complaints either. On the other hand, Knight said she's confused as to
why drugged-driving laws seem targeted at marijuana smokers.

"That's the perception, but the truth is, a lot more accident deaths
are caused by people and their speed, their reckless driving," she
said, "not those under the influence.

"According to the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety," Knight continued,
there were 365 fatalities in 2003, 117 were alcohol-related only, 40
were alcohol and drugs, and 26 were drugs only. Depending on how you
crunch the statistics, 18 percent included some form of drug, and 7
percent were drugs only."

Knight is in the midst of signature blitz that could put a statewide
legalization referendum on the upcoming November ballot in Nevada. The
law will allow possession of an ounce for personal use, but also will
increase penalties for those convicted of manslaughter while under the
influence of marijuana.

The government is fairly open nonetheless about whom DUID laws are
targeting. Ohio Gov. Bob Taft's wife Hope Taft, perceived by marijuana
activists as a high-profile "drug warrior," singled out Ohio teenagers
during the Cincinnati press conference that introduced the federal
bill encouraging states to enact zero-tolerance duid laws, officially
called The Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act. One out of five
Franklin County high-school seniors had driven while high on marijuana
during the last year, claimed Hope Taft, citing a survey.

Taft has an advisory position with the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, the federal government's command center for the war on drugs.
The chief democratic sponsor for this bill is Rep. Sander Levin of
Michigan.

"The numbers are staggering right now (people driving high)," claimed
Kyle Downey, communications director for U.S. Rep. Portman. "And the
burden of proof is on the law-enforcement officer to determine whether
a driver is under the influence."

Statistics issued from Portman's office maintain that 11 million
people drove under the influence of some illegal drug during 2002.
Marijuana activists have countered by saying there's not that many pot
smokers in the United States.

Unlike the other national DUID bill, Portman's bill does not penalize
states that refuse to enact a zero-tolerance statute. It does promise
financial incentives for those that do, however. These incentives then
would be used to finance the training of law-enforcement officers on
how to better identify drug users, along with developing faster and
on-site drug testing.

Zero tolerance laws continue to come under criticism from all sides of
the debate.

Law-enforcement circles argue that police need an instant test similar
to the one for alcohol. Hope Taft claims that teenagers are
increasingly turning to marijuana because they believe police have a
harder time detecting it than alcohol.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a study
that drivers high on marijuana are prone to "slowing down or
increasing effort... As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on
driving performance appear relatively small." Drinking by far causes
greater problems for drivers, while a mixture of drinking and
marijuana is almost equally as bad, the study said.

Several other studies have supported this "marijuana-only" argument.
They basically say that it's practically impossible to know how a
certain drug and its amount can affect particular drug users and their
driving habits.

"I am not advocating for people to be able to smoke and drive, like a
person should not drink and drive," said Norris of California's
Cannabis Consumers Campaign. "That said, a person can have a drink
without being in a drunken state or too drunk to drive. Before someone
can be accused of 'drugged driving,' research needs to be done on
levels that coincide for likely impairment due to the use of a drug,
based on science not politics. For most people, a couple of tokes will
not cause that degree of impairment."