Bill would change testing for marijuana DUI in Nevada

Man driving and smoking. (Thinkstock)

A bill that would change forensics tests for drivers suspected of being high on marijuana uses a more scientific detection method, proponents of the proposal told the Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee on Friday.

Assembly Bill 135 would mandate the use of a blood test to detect marijuana metabolite and eliminate urine tests for traces of the drug.

“It is simply updating the law with scientific facts,” Touro University Nevada student doctor Graham Lambert told the committee.

Nevada law defines marijuana impairment for drivers as someone who has a certain amount of “marijuana” and “marijuana metabolite” in their urine or blood.

But the metabolite that most of the state’s forensics labs look for, Carboxy THC, does not have a psychoactive effect and has been shown to stay in the body for extended periods of time, Lambert said.

Proponents of the measure argued that police labs should test for the marijuana compounds that do affect the brain, Delta-9 THC and the metabolite 11-Hydroxy THC. Urine tests for marijuana would be eliminated because these psychoactive compounds are not present enough in urine.

A provision that instructed police labs to test saliva as well was met with resistance by state law enforcement agencies. The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office reported that it would cost the agency more than $1 million to set up saliva testing.

An amendment discussed Friday removed the saliva provision and police dropped their opposition.

Several medical marijuana patient advocates opposed the measure, saying that the bill does not go far enough. They said statutory thresholds for marijuana impairment — measured in the blood as 2 ng/mL of marijuana or 5 ng/mL of metabolite — also need to be changed because marijuana patients could meet those thresholds long after use.

Ng/mL is nanograms per milliliter, a unit of measurement often used for lab test results.

Committee Chairman Steve Yeager, D-Las Vegas, said the measure would not affect those thresholds.

No action was taken.

Contact Wesley Juhl at wjuhl@reviewjournal.com and 702.383-0391. Follow @WesJuhl on Twitter.