OPN member, Mary Jane Borden, attended the Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee's hearing on HB/SB 8 on Tuesday, March 21, 2006. Rob Ryan, who has testified before about this proposed "Driving While Under the Influence of Drugs" (DUID) legislation, put together testimony, but couldn't make it to Columbus. Borden attended instead, taking 25 copies of Ryan's written testimony with her.

The hearing kicked off with a motion by Representative Bill Seitz (R-30) to add a three part amendment: 1.) reconcile HB/SB 8 with the conceal/carry law - you can't carrying guns while under the influence; 2.) add impairment by pharmaceutical drugs, but only if "abused"; and 3.) define marijuana metabolites.

Part three of this amendment lightens the definition of "per se" from 15/5 nanograms of THC (blood/urine) to 50/35. For one to be convicted under 15/5, it would also need to be demonstrated that he/she showed obvious signs of impairment. Please recall that these numbers represent concentration, so less is more.

Representative Sally Kilbane (R-16) appeared troubled by HB/SB 8 and its amendments. She asserted that for someone even to be considered under the 50/35 limitation, they would have already been deemed "under the influence." She reiterated "people [meaning police] see what they want to see."

Another point driven home by DPA's Ed Orlett questioned the labs designated to perform drug tests used to verify impairment under HB/SB 8. Apparently, few organizations certify drug testing companies and even fewer certified testers operate in the State of Ohio. This would certainly affect the fairness of HB/SB 8 by constricting access to tests that can have a profound effect on arrestees' lives.

Toward the very end of the hearing, Rep. Kilbane picked up Rob Ryan's testimony, which had been passed out to all committee members by Orlett. She quoted Ryan's Conclusion directly into the record and asked if it wouldn't be more appropriate for the legislature to wait for more accurate tests to be developed. The testimony ended there.

The committee then voted, first to accept the amendment, which they did; and then to pass HB/SB 8, which unfortunately they also did. It was a roll call, voice vote with only two or so dissenters, among them Rep. Kilbane.

The bill has now been referred to the Rules Committee. As he introduced the amendment, Rep. Seitz indicated that Senator Steve Austria (R-10), who had originally introduced SB 8, had approved the amendment, meaning that this dangerous "Chemical Loyalty Oath" will likely become law.

-------------------- Rob Ryan's Testimony -------------------- March 21, 2006

Dear Honorable Representative Latta, and Criminal Justice House Panel members,

Last year I testified before you on Senate Bill 8 and just heard that the House panel is considering this bill again. I will not be able to make it Columbus today, but I would like my voice heard. This DUI-D bill that is before you today is a fraud; this is not about impairment. Cannabis (AKA marihuana) metabolites can stay in your system for weeks. Cannabis metabolite "per se" laws define you as guilty of "Driving Under the Influence" when there is no quilt. Remember "per se" means that you are guilty with no rebuttal.

I went through chemotherapy for colon cancer and used cannabis for the extreme nausea I experienced. It worked!, but I'll tell you straight out I was not impaired by the amount of cannabis I consumed. If you think that is radical you should ask that the National Highway Safety Commission how many people died on the roads with cannabis alone, with no alcohol in their blood. The number is so small they lump it with "other". Numerous US, Canadian, British and international studies back my assertions. Last year I provided the House and Senate panels with the references to these government studies.

Even the State's own task force on DUI did not recommend passage of these per se laws. In addition Dr. Ferguson, the state toxicologist, essentially refuted the bill, especially the cannabis metabolites. Dr. Strabaus, a well-known forensic toxicologist from Ohio State, testimony provided no support for this law. I have attached a report from the National Study Center for Trauma and EMS, University of Maryland School of Medicine Baltimore, MD titled "CRASH CULPABILITY RELATIVE TO AGE AND SEX FOR INJURED DRIVERS USING ALCOHOL, MARIJUANA OR COCAINE" for the 49th ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF AUTOMOTIVE MEDICINE September 12-14, 2005; where the Conclusion (page 338) was:

CONCLUSIONS This study documents for the first time that there is an association with pre-injury cocaine use and crash culpability in a large population of injured drivers admitted to a trauma center among males and drivers of 21 to 40 years of age. The study provides further documentation that crash culpability is linked to pre-injury alcohol use among both sexes and in all age groups. Finally, the study adds to the clinical body of literature suggesting that pre-injury marijuana alone is not associated with an increase in crash culpability.

This study was one of the largest studies ever done on this subject. Even the Federal government has backed off the zero tolerance per se law by Former Congressman Robert Portman. Mr. Portman's federal bill may be gone, but his bill seems to have found a home in SB8.

Honorable ladies and gentlemen, I served my country, my community, my church, and even my party on the Central Committee before I moved to Ohio (and got cancer). This bill is not about impairment; this is about what I will call a "Chemical Loyalty Oath Act". Please act to table this bill and task our legislators to revise our DUI law so that it enhances safety on the road and does not become "Loyalty Oath".

Please feel free to call on me if I may be of any assistance.

Robert R. Ryan

www.robryan.org