PORTMAN BILL IS EXCESSIVE

Imagine if 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 newly proposed Congressional legislation
by Ohio Rep. Rob Portman mandating that each state enact laws
sanctioning anyone who operates a motor vehicle "while any detectable
amount of a controlled substance is present in the person's body, as
measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily
substance."

While the expressed purpose of this legislation, the "Drug Impaired
Driving Enforcement Act of 2004," is to target and remove
drug-impaired drivers from our nation'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 if 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, John and Jane are pulled over. John is given a breathalyzer test
and tests negative for alcohol. Jane is asked to submit to a urine
test and tests positive for marijuana. Jane is then 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 Portman's proposal, so-called "zero tolerance" per se
legislation, presumes individuals guilty of driving while intoxicated
simply if trace levels of a controlled substances or even drug
metabolites (inactive compounds indicative of past drug use) are
detected in their bodily fluids -- even if the individual is neither
under the influence nor impaired to drive. For anyone who enjoys an
occasional toke from a marijuana cigarette, this news ought to be
especially unsettling, as marijuana metabolites are often detectable
in a person's urine for days or even weeks after the drug is consumed.

Aside from being poorly drafted, this unfunded federal mandate from
Congress is unnecessary. All states already have DUID (driving under
the influence of drugs) statutes on the books. Most are
"effect-based" laws that forbid drivers to operate a motor vehicle if
they are either "under the influence" of a controlled substance, or
if they have been rendered "incapable of driving safely" because of
their use of an illicit drug. This is a multidisciplinary standard
that focuses on the totality of circumstances and rightly punishes
motorists who drive while impaired from having recently used illicit
drugs.

There is no need for additional legislation, especially from the
federal government.

While driving under the influence of illicit and licit substances is
obviously a serious issue, Portman's proposal neither addresses the
problem nor offers a legitimate solution. "Zero tolerance" laws are
neither a safe nor sensible way to identify impaired drivers; they are
an attempt to misuse the traffic safety laws in order to identify and
prosecute recreational drug users.

At a minimum, laws targeting drug drivers should identify "parent
drugs" (in other words, cocaine or THC), not simply inactive drug
metabolites. Further, these laws must have scientifically sound
cut-off levels that correlate drug concentration to impairment of
performance, similar to the 0.08 BAC standard that now exists for
drunk driving. There must also be assurances that the laws mandate any
and all drug testing to be performed and confirmed by accredited state
labs using uniform procedures and standards.

Until these measures are in place, it is premature and illogical for
Congress to strong-arm states to adopt this unnecessary and unsound
"zero tolerance" drugged driving policy.