Nevada's New Drug Driving Law (Marijuana Intoxication)

Nevada's Drug Impairment Law Hailed, Criticized.

8/30/2003 09:45 pm
By Martha Bellisle
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL

Too many drivers high on drugs are causing fatal crashes while avoiding prosecution, say federal officials who are calling for new laws nationwide that would send a driver to prison without proving drugs caused the accident.

The new legislation, to be modeled after statutes recently passed in Nevada and eight other states, would make it illegal for drivers to have drugs, including marijuana, in their systems.

Under these laws, prosecutors don't have to prove that the drugs impacted the driver's ability to stay on the road. They simply must show the drugs were in the driver's body.

A positive test could mean a 20-year sentence for each count.

Two Reno drivers and one woman from Las Vegas who face decades in prison after being involved in fatal accidents and testing positive for marijuana are challenging the law in court. Their success or failure could affect legislation across the country.

"The intent (of the law) was to make sure that if someone was driving under the influence of a controlled substance, they would be held responsible for loss of life," said U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., who sponsored Nevada's prohibited substance drug bill in 1999 while a state senator.

But critics of Nevada's law, including toxicologists, lawyers, civil libertarians and some lawmakers, say the statue is unfair and unconstitutional because it does not require proof that the driver was actually impaired by the drugs.

And, they say, the cut-off levels for the drugs listed in the statute are so small that impairment would be unlikely in many circumstances.

This means that a person who uses marijuana at a party on Saturday night could test positive when in an accident on Monday, days after the drugs were taken, critics say. That's because unlike alcohol, some drugs can stay in a person's system for a long time.

"People are going to prison for smoking a joint a day or two or three ago," said John Watkins, a Las Vegas lawyer for one of three Nevadans currently charged under the law.

"The whole idea of driving under the influence is driving under the influence," he said. "But we're putting people in prison who are not impaired."

Last year, Watkins challenged the law in the Nevada Supreme Court. But the justices upheld the statute, saying: "the governmental interest in maintaining safe highways is sufficient for our prohibited substance statute to survive a constitutional attackâ"

Despite the high court's ruling, Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, is determined to overhaul the law.

She and two other lawmakers, Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks and Marcus Conklin, D-Las Vegas, introduced a bill during the last session that would increase the statute's allowable amounts of marijuana in an attempt to measure impairment, not just the presence of drug.

They plan to bring it back in 2005.

Posted Thursday, March 22, 2007
Filed in DUI News | Nevada DUI  | Permalink |  Comments (4)