Marijuana.com

Buzzby

Law Quantifies Drugged-Driving Levels
Alayna DeMartini | Columbus Dispatch | 08/17/2006

Pot smokers have another reason to be paranoid now.

Starting today, a state law makes it easier to nail Ohioans who drive stoned.

It has long been illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, but the new law spells out specific limits for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, LSD and PCP, as well as for the byproducts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin.

Backers of the law say the limits for each drug are designed to be equivalent to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol content for drunken drivers. But local defense attorneys warn that drugs such as marijuana remain in a person’s system long after the drug affects them. So a motorist who smokes a joint on a Friday night could test over the marijuana limit on Tuesday, said Columbus lawyer Jon Saia.

"How will the officer know if the person smoked marijuana three days before? " he asked.

Officials of the State Highway Patrol say the limits were set high enough to measure only drugs taken within a few hours of the test. (BuzzNote: an outright lie! A 10 ng/ml level of THC metabolites in urine could occur weeks after the last use.) The levels match those set by Nevada, the first state to enact a law setting levels at which a motorist is presumed to be impaired. Ten other states have similar laws.

The Ohio law is expected to make it easier to convince a jury or judge that a motorist was under the influence of drugs. Previously, to convict a drugged motorist, the prosecution had to rely primarily on the arresting officers’ observations and how the person performed on roadside tests, said Lt. Shawn Davis of the Highway Patrol.

When a motorist was tested for drugs, prosecutors had to bring in an expert witness, Davis said.

"If I testified the driver tested having 500 nanograms of marijuana, everyone said, ‘What does that mean?’ " he said. "That’s one of the things we always battled."

Cases sometimes were thrown out of court because of uncertainty about impairment levels, he said.

Under the new law, motorists are presumed to be impaired if they have, for example, at least 10 nanograms of marijuana per milliliter of urine or two nanograms per milliliter of blood. (A nanogram is a billionth of a gram, and a milliliter is one thousandth of a liter.)

(BuzzNote: 10 ng/ml is one-fifth the level of a standard marijuana UA, the kind they use for pre-employment or probation testing. One could easily test positive at 10 ng/ml after more than a month of abstinence. This is no measure of impairment.)

Mitchell Ford was tested for drugs on Sept. 30, 2003, after he made an illegal turn in Xenia and crashed into 38-year-old motorcyclist Duane Thomas, killing him. Ford tested positive for marijuana, but the results couldn’t be used in court, because the officer didn’t observe signs of impaired driving.

Ford was charged with aggravated vehicular homicide. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, involuntary manslaughter, and was sentenced to a year in jail and lifelong loss of his driver’s license.

Ford’s sentence likely would have been harsher had there been no doubt that his system contained enough marijuana to affect his driving, said Thomas’ sister, Deborah Eick.

"I know he’d be serving more time," she said. "People think they’re flying under the proverbial radar when they’re smoking marijuana or taking other drugs."

The penalty for the first conviction for driving under the influence of drugs is the same as for the first drunken-driving offense: up to six months in jail, a $1,000 fine and a license suspension for three years. Drivers who refuse to submit to a drug test lose their license for a year.

The new law says that any motorist testing over the drug limits is impaired, just as the drunken-driving law says that a driver whose blood-alcohol level is 0.08 percent or above is impaired.

But "unlike someone who’s drinking and gets behind the wheel, a person who’s smoking marijuana and is high (often drives) more cautiously," said Alfred Staubus, a forensic toxicologist and retired Ohio State University professor who often testifies at trials. "Some studies show marijuana can be found to even enhance driving — because they’re concentrating so hard to not get stopped."

The law exempts prescription medications, and a driver can’t be stopped on suspicion of impairment alone. But if an officer thinks a traffic regulation has been violated and stops a car, then smells pot, sees drugs or thinks the driver is impaired, the officer can ask the driver to perform fieldsobriety tests, such as walking a straight line.

There is no equivalent of the Breathalyzer test for motorists suspected of being high on drugs. But if a driver fails the roadside tests, the officer can request that he or she submit to a urine or blood test for drugs.

The urine sample can be collected at a police station or Highway Patrol office. The blood sample must be taken at a hospital.

Defense attorneys commonly challenge the validity of urine tests because of the room for error, Saia said.

Saia does not expect a sharp increase in drug testing of drivers. As he put it, to arouse an officer’s suspicion, "the person is going to have to be acting really crazy."

(BuzzNote: or have long hair, wear a concert t-shirt, be non-Caucasian, or be under 25…)

 

dedbr

I've made sure of that!

They won't get this crap by either! Like Buzzby says, if your going to use a test, use one that's fair and not one that can show something in your system 30 day's after you've used it....

Too bad they don't have one yet.....

Something else they need to mention.....the second OVI in Ohio is now a felony. That's right, you can go to the penitentiary for a while for getting caught smoking and driving the second time......

Just another one of the rewards of herb smoking....


Here In Ded Land......We do things different, Partna'.....

__________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Abraham Lincoln
Happy New Year.......

Buzzby

Most police cars are now equipped with video cameras. How about a taped field sobriety test coupled with a breathalyzer (to rule out alcohol) and a saliva test?

__________________

Swabeky

I am actually for an on site test to determine what the driver might of been on. but as buzzby pointed out, the test is ludicrous. theres nothing wrong with keeping impaired drivers off the road, too bad we don't have a wonder test yet.

dedbr

Do you feel physical impairment from herb smoking? Well, I'll concede, some of us may not be supermen, but you better refuse that swab test, because even if your not impaired your still going to be guilty 30 days after you've toked.

And that, sports fans, your not.


Some Where In Ded Land......

 

Swabeky

I become a little spacy and sleepy under some indica and I wouldn't want to drive on that, nor would I want the guy traveling 55 on the other side of the road smoking the stuff either, that yellow line won't protect you for anything. and the testing levels are crap, shame that the cops finally had a good idea, but decide to screw it up at the end.

Buzzby

Of course! If you don't then you must be smoking really crap weed.

It's dosage related, just as with most drugs. I don't feel impaired on my usual dosage because I don't want to smoke enough to get impaired, just as I don't like to drink enough to get drunk. But if I were to take ten bong hits of White Widow I wouldn't be impaired - I'd be paralyzed! Getting on the road in that condition would be suicidal at best; homicidal at worst.

Saliva tests have a detection window of 14 to 72 hours, depending on whom you ask.

dedbr

swab test is supposed to be 72 hours at most, but it's still a test.

I'll wait on that one, too, since I'm not keen on giving evidence against myself....


Some Where In Ded Land.........