►
From YouTube: Drunk and High Behind the Wheel
Description
This online meeting discussed observed polysubstance-impaired driving trends, presented an overview of oral fluid testing laws and provided for small-group discussion on current state experiences and best practices.
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
for
today's
national
conference
of
state
legislatures
online
meeting
drunken
high
behind
the
wheel,
tackling
the
growing
threat
of
poly
substance,
impaired
driving,
my
name
is
samantha
block
and
I'll
be
your
moderator.
For
today
I
joined
ncsl's
transportation
program
in
2019,
an
mncsl's
expert
on
alcohol
and
drug
impaired,
driving,
distracted
driving
and
other
traffic
safety
issues.
A
A
A
After
the
presentation,
we
will
break
out
for
small
group
discussion
and
will
hold
a
formal
q
a
after
reconvening
today's
meeting
is
being
recorded
and
will
be
available
together
with
the
pdf
presentations
on
ncsl's
website.
Within
the
week,
discussion
in
the
breakout
rooms
will
not
be
recorded
and
we
will
send
attendees
a
link
to
all
the
resources
if
you
experience
any
technical
difficulties,
please
mention
this
in
the
chat
box
and
one
of
my
co-hosts
will
be
ready
to
assist
you.
A
A
A
A
In
recent
years,
at
least
five
states
have
passed
legislation
aimed
at
improving
data
collection
and
reporting
of
driving
under
the
influence
of
drug
offenses,
for
example
in
colorado.
Since
2017
the
department
of
public
safety
has
to
report
annually
on
substance
affected
driving
to
the
general
assembly,
ncsl
tracks,
policy
and
legislative
trends
related
to
alcohol
and
drug
impaired
driving.
A
We
have
several
useful
online
resources
and
you
can
find
links
to
those
resources
in
the
chat
box.
Now
today's
presentation
will
provide
an
overview
of
polysubstance
impaired,
driving
and
oral
fluid
testing
laws.
We
want
to
thank
responsibility.org
for
making
this
online
meeting
possible
and
for
lending
their
expertise
and
leadership
to
this
important
and
timely
traffic
safety
topic.
A
A
Speaking
first,
we
have
darren.
He
is
the
vice
president
of
traffic
safety
and
government
relations
for
responsibility.org
daring
previously
served
as
the
director
of
the
washington
traffic
safety
commission
from
2012
to
2020
and
retired,
as
a
captain
in
2017
from
the
washington
state
patrol
after
25
years
of
service.
A
Next,
we
will
hear
from
jake
jake
is
the
director
of
traffic
safety,
advocacy
and
research
for
triple
a?
He
is
a
trained
epidemiologist
who
began
his
career
as
a
researcher
in
the
medical
field
and
shifted
to
applying
his
skills
in
the
real
world,
application
of
statistical
data
in
rigorous
academic
research
to
reduce
crashes,
injuries
and
deaths
on
the
nation's
roadways.
B
Well,
thank
you
samantha
for
the
warm
introduction
and
the
invitation
to
be
on
this
webinar
responsibility.org.
We
would
like
to
thank
you
and
all
the
members
of
the
national
conference
of
state
legislatures
for
hosting
and
being
able
to
put
this
webinar
on
especially
doug
schenkel,
our
transportation
program
director
for
the
great
assistance
and
the
information
and
feedback
we've
had
to
put
this
on.
B
We
are
thrilled.
This
webinar
has
attracted
so
many
people,
and
I
understand
that
this
is
one
of
the
largest
gatherings
for
an
ncsl
webinar
in
a
long
time,
and
so
we're
grateful
to
for
that.
But
it
also
really
shows
the
interest
in
this
particular
topic.
The
growing
trend,
the
issues
that
are
surrounding
the
poly
substance,
impaired
driving
and
also
what
can
we
do
about
it?
B
B
We
actually
started
as
an
organization
in
1991
with
a
three-fold
mission
that
is
to
eliminate
impaired
driving,
I'm
sorry,
drunk
driving
and
work
with
others
to
end
all
impaired
driving.
It
also
is
to
lead
efforts
to
eliminate
underage
drinking
and
also
to
empower
adults
to
make
a
lifetime
of
responsible
alcohol
choices.
B
This
is
just
a
sampling
of
many
of
the
partners
that
we
work
with
and
associate
with
to
address,
impaired
driving
through
various
research,
evidence-based
countermeasures
and
innovative
ways
and
technologies
to
eliminate
impaired
driving.
It
takes
all
of
us
working
together
to
address
this
issue
of
impaired
driving.
When
I
mean
impaired
driving,
especially
it
means
around
the
poly
or
multi-substance
use
of
various
substances.
B
B
B
It's
a
combination
of
all
substances
mixed
together,
whatever
they
might
be,
as
you
can
see
through
the
the
picture,
it
could
be
drugs
and
it
can
be
alcohol
does
it
include
alcohol
absolutely
and
unfortunately,
we
see
too
many
tragedies
with
combinations
of
alcohol
and
combinations
that
are
out
there.
You
know
responsibility.org
is
really
focusing
because
we
look
at
eliminating
drunk
driving,
but
also,
as
part
of
that
is
eliminating
all
forms
of
impaired
driving.
B
B
B
Marijuana
stayed
about
the
same,
at
least
at
this
time
period,
but
now,
with
all
of
the
legalization
efforts,
would
we
start
to
see,
increases
in
that
and
then
with
alcohol
we
saw
some
significant
decreases
in
use
of
alcohol
over
that
time
period,
but
through
covet
and
other
things,
are
we
starting
to
see
some
of
those
things
creep
up?
So
I
would
ask,
and
just
as
we
go
through
this
looking
at,
how
do
we
improve
data
systems?
One
of
them
is
it's
time
to
repeat
the
national
roadside
survey.
B
You
know
when
I
was
the
national,
actually,
the
state,
highway
safety
office
director
in
washington.
We
did
this
national
roadside
survey
separately
in
preparation
for
the
legalization
of
marijuana
pre-sales
and
we
found
very
similar
data.
Obviously
we
found
some
increases
in
cannabis
use
after
sales,
but
we
need
congress
to
reauthorize
the
national
roadside
survey
for
data
collection
and
we've
identified
some
ways
to
improve
that
research
methodology
to
allow
this
to
be
more
effective
and
to
address
the
issues
that
were
raised
with
that
next
slide.
B
Please,
you
know
we
have
significant
research
identifying
about
alcohol
and
the
various
levels
of
impairment.
At
what
stages
you
are,
we
know
what
the
blood
alcohol
concentration
level
is
and
those
types
of
impairments
that
you
would
see
at
those
various
levels.
However,
there
is
no
empirical
evidence
to
show
what
that
level
would
be
for
cannabis.
In
essence,
there's
no
bac
for
thc.
B
B
We
see
that
how
individuals
may
respond
to
that
frequency
of
use,
chronic
issues,
those
things
all
raise
the
level
that
will
we
ever
have
an
actual
level
of
impairment
so,
right
now
the
research
shows
that
there
is
no
level
of
impairment
other
than
what
we
see
is
the
officers
roadside
being
able
to
see
through
standard
field,
sobriety
tests,
the
driving
the
observations
and
making
those
calling
in
a
drug
recognition
expert
to
help,
assess
and
evaluate
and
making
those
good
decisions.
Roadside
next
slide,
please
you
know
some
of
the
emerging
issues.
B
When
I
was
in
washington,
we
saw
we
went
back
to
2008
through
2016
to
look
at
the
data,
because
many
of
the
the
fars
data
at
the
time
only
allowed
for
three
substances
to
be
entered
into
the
national
database.
So
we
went
back
and
pulled
every
toxicology
report
from
2008
all
the
way
through
and
we
saw
the
you
know
the
issues
of
about
36
percent
of
fatalities
involve
alcohol,
only
44
was
paulie
drugs
or
any
combination
of
substances.
Together,
12
was
only
one
drug
which
did
not
include
alcohol
or
thc.
B
So
we
saw
a
lot
of
other
substances
and
then
six
percent
of
that
was
thc.
So
we
do
see
this
continuing
to
increase
over
the
years
next
slide.
Please,
when
we
look
at
the
complexity
of
impaired
driving
and
public
perceptions,
we
did
a
survey
many
years
ago,
in
conjunction
with
the
governor's
highway
safety
association
and
looking
at
drug
versus
drunk
driving,
there's
hundreds
of
drugs.
Alcohol
is
alcohol.
We've
seen
where
use
by
drivers
and
the
presence
in
crashes
is
the
data
is
very
limited
for
drugs,
but
for
alcohol
we've
got
abundant.
B
B
B
And
if
you
go
to
the
next
slide
in
2018
8
867
people
were
killed
in
motor
crash
vehicle
crashes,
where
at
least
one
driver
tested
positive
for
drugs,
accounting
for
over
24
of
the
fatal
crashes
23
of
the
fatal
crashes
involved,
drugs
at
least
one
driver
tested.
So
you
think
about
some
of
these
issues.
It
isn't
just
a
a
one-off.
B
This
is
something
that's
happening
in
all
of
our
communities
and
if
you
take
a
look
at
your
data,
you
will
see
that
this
is
a
growing
trend
and
problem
that
really
needs
to
be
addressed
next
slide
in
washington
state.
We
saw
this
right
after
legalization,
where
we
saw
our
multi-substance
impaired,
driving
issues
starting
to
really
creep
up
from
about
82
a
year
to
over
172
at
the
high
point
in
2016
and
then
back
in
2018
and
152
fatal
crashes,
where
somebody
had
multiple
substances
in
their
system.
B
B
B
B
B
Take
a
look
at
some
of
the
samples
there,
especially
in
the
middle
with
marijuana
metabolites
at
over
10
000
positive
drug
tests
with
marijuana
metabolites,
cocaine,
metabolites
amphetamines.
This
was
actually
a
sample
as
of
of
june
1st,
so
in
the
first
six
months
of
the
year,
because
this
came
out
in
january
of
2020
positive
drug
tests
account
for
80
of
the
total
violations
reported
on
commercial
vehicle
carriers.
So
another
area
of
taking
a
look
at
data
and
seeing
where
do
we
have
some
of
those
issues?
B
So
at
responsibility.org.
We
are
very
concerned
about
the
multi
or
poly
substance
use,
and
earlier
this
year
our
national
board
approved
three
new
policy
statements,
one
on
multi-substance,
impaired
driving
and
the
impacts
and
needs
for
change
oral
fluid
screening
and
for
impaired
drivers,
and
also
increased
testing
for
impaired
driving
cases
themselves,
improving
the
standardization
of
toxicology
screens,
improving
the
timeliness
of
response
for
labs
to
be
able
to
get
those
to
the
court
and
addressing
those
accordingly
next
slide.
B
So,
as
we
are
very
concerned
about
this,
and
looking
at
this
holistically
is
as
an
organization,
we
were
working
with
some
other
organizations
that
have
been
supporting
of
this
idea.
One
is
abbott
laboratories.
Also
the
to
look
at
this
is
an
issue
of
creating
an
organization
or
a
national
coalition
called
the
national
alliance
to
stop
impaired
driving
next
slide.
Please,
this
national
alliance
would
be
one
that
would
be
organized
coming
together
to
be
a
national
voice,
bringing
all
of
our
resources
together.
Many
of
us
are
working
in
silos.
B
Many
of
us
are
working
independently,
but
how
do
we
bring
those
resources
together
to
address
this
multi-substance,
impaired
driving
and
what
other
resources
and
technologies
that
we
could
bring
to
address
this?
So
why
are
we
talking
about
creating
a
national
coalition
well
for
drug
and
multi-substance
impaired
driving
is
increasing,
as
we've
notified
or
noted,
covet
increases
in
risky
driving,
well-demanded
attention
and
opportunities
at
both
the
state
and
federal
levels,
to
help
to
address
federal
and
state
policy
issues
to
address
this
and
also
the
issues
of
technology.
B
Now
this
coalition
is
kind
of
a
spin-off
from
what
we've
been
doing
in
michigan
on
an
oral
pilot
oral
fluid
pilot
there.
That
group
said
how
about
we
take
this
this
state
coalition
and
make
it
a
national
coalition
brian
swift,
who
is
also
on
this
call
and
pictured
here.
He
turned
tragedy
into
action.
His
parents
were
killed
by
a
log
truck
driver
up
in
northern
michigan,
who
was
all
the
way
under
the
influence
of
cannabis
and
killed.
B
Both
of
his
parents
is
taking
him
seven
years
to
help,
see
and
bring
about
change,
and
we
feel
like
that
is
way
too
long
to
help
bring
about
that
change.
So
this
organization
would
help
bring
about
that,
bringing
experts
from
all
around
the
country
bringing
people
together
to
help
address
this
next
slide.
The
mission
of
of
this
organization
would
be
really
to
eliminate
all
forms
of
impaired
driving,
especially
multi-substance
through
the
doi
system,
reforms,
detection
and
improvements
in
technology.
B
B
As
a
must
have
you
know
ensuring
greater
exposure
to
this,
how
it
works,
the
reliability,
the
effectiveness,
kind
of
demystifying,
some
of
the
issues
that
are
around
some
of
the
technologies
and
really
looking?
How
do
we
promote
that
building
champions
around
multi-substance
and
really
addressing?
This
is
not
just
well
that's
just
impaired
driving,
because
this
kills
way
too
many
people
convene
influencers
from
around
the
country
and
also
assist
practitioners
with
training
and
education
next
slide.
B
B
So
if
you
would
would
like
to
be
a
member-
and
I
would
encourage
you
to-
is
to
contact
me-
here's
my
information,
my
email
and
my
phone
number.
We
have
more
information
that
will
be
coming
out,
but
in
the
time
allowed
please
reach
out
to
me
and
I'm
excited
to
be
able
to
see
this
national
group
being
working
together,
and
I
will
turn
the
time
over
to
jake.
C
Thank
you,
samantha,
and
thank
you
darren
for
for
teeing
up
my
portion
of
the
talk
today.
You
you
know,
I
think,
based
on
what
darren
shared
with
all
of
you,
it's
pretty
clear
that
there
is
a
growing
demand
for
some
way
to
quickly
detect
drug
impaired
drivers
at
the
roadside
sort
of
a
breathalyzer
for
drugs
other
than
alcohol,
and
so
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
accomplish
today
is
to
share
a
little
bit
about
the
use
of
oral
fluid
as
a
sample
to
detect
drugs
in
the
environment
of
impaired
driving
prevention.
C
When
we
talk
about
oral
fluid,
you
know
testing
for
drugs
using
oral
fluid.
We
have
to
be
careful
when
we
use
the
word
testing
versus
screening,
so
roadside
screening.
This
is
you
know.
A
law
enforcement
officer
collects
an
oral
fluid
sample
at
the
roadside.
During
a
traffic.
Stop
gets
a
result
in
about
10
minutes
and
has
some
information
that
may
suggest
that
this
motor,
that
a
particular
motorist
has
one
or
more
classes
of
drugs
in
their
body.
C
So
let
me
switch
gears
here
just
for
a
minute
to
cancer,
so
there
are
lots
of
screening
tests
for
cancer
and
we
would
not
diagnose
somebody
with
a
form
of
cancer
based
on
the
results
of
a
screening
test,
and
that's
because
screening
tests
are
not
always
accurate
and
the
same
concept
applies
in
this
case.
So
we
can
have
the
result
of
a
roadside
screen
for
one
or
more
classes
of
drugs
in
the
body
of
a
driver.
C
What
we
need
for
that
is
an
oral
fluid
sample,
sent
to
a
forensic
laboratory
to
a
toxicology
testing
environment
where
more
rigorous
testing
and
analysis
can
be
done
and
those
results
are
the
results
that
become
evidentiary
or
can
be
admissible
as
evidence
in
court
sort
of
the
confirmatory
testing.
And
so
I
think
it's
it's
common
for
those
of
us
who
work
in
highway
safety
and
for
policy
makers
to
be
loose
with
the
words
that
we
use.
C
So
the
results
of
a
roadside
screen
what
you
get
within
10
minutes
during
a
traffic
stop
produces
information
that
can
be
used
to
build
probable
cause.
For
you
know
the
arrest
for
a
search
warrant
to
get
a
blood
draw
or
to
get
a
secondary
oral
fluid
sample
to
send
to
a
laboratory
for
confirmation
testing
the
results
that
you
obtain
at
the
roadside.
C
That's
not
evidence
that
can
be
used
during
a
court
case,
a
dui,
a
dui
court
case,
an
inevitable
cause
hearing
yes,
but
not
not
during
trial.
It's
the
result
of
the
lab-based
test,
that's
evidentiary!
That
can
be
admissible
in
court
for
a
dui
case,
so
two
different
things
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
today
with
different
implications.
C
So
there
are
strengths
and
limitations
of
roadside
screening
versus
lab
lab-based
testing.
So
I
just
I'm
not
going
to
give
you
an
exhaustive
list,
but
I
want
to
share
some
of
those
with
with
you,
so
some
of
the
advantages
of
roadside
screening
using
oral
fluid
you
can
identify
recent
drug
use,
it's
easy
and
fast
to
collect
minimally
invasive,
similar
to
a
breath
test
rapid
results
in
under
10
minutes,
as
I
mentioned
before,
used
in
conjunction
with
the
other
kinds
of
evidence
that
you
heard
darren
mentioned
before
through.
C
Some
of
the
the
disadvantages
are
limitations
to
the
use
of
oral
fluid
and
roadside
screening
specifically,
is
that
not
all
these
devices
are
created.
Equally,
not
all
of
the
devices
on
the
market
have
the
same
sensitivity
and
specificity
they're,
not
accurate
to
the
same
degree
and
reliable.
In
the
same
way,
there
are
sensitivity
concerns
around
certain
kinds
of
drugs.
C
For
example,
benzodiazepines
these
roadside
screening
devices
often
are
limited
in
the
number
of
drugs
that
they
can
test
for
in
real
time
at
the
roadside.
Those
limits
aren't
really
applicable
in
the
context
of
lab-based
testing,
where
there's
more
technology
available,
so
switching
gears
to
the
lab-based
or
evidentiary
testing
or
confirmation
testing,
as
you
can
describe
it
as
well
again
fast
and
easy
collection
of
the
oral
fluid
sample.
C
There
is
low
likelihood
of
specimen
contamination
or
adulteration
short
window
of
detection
means
that
you
can
likely
capture
recent
drug
use,
which
is
important
in
these.
In
these
scenarios,
and
some
of
the
the
limitations
is
really
the
cost
and
you
that
includes
not
just
the
cost
for
training
and
education
of
lab
personnel-
and
you
know
other
members
of
the
the
criminal
justice
community,
like
law
enforcement
officers,
who
would
have
to
receive
training
on
how
to
collect
these
samples.
C
C
So
there
are
really
three
ways
that
oral
fluid.
The
use
of
oral
fluid
for
drug
screening
and
or
testing
can
be
permitted
within
a
state.
So
one
would
be
through
a
state's
implied
consent
law
so
implied.
Consent
is
basically
an
administrative
law
really
designed
to
encourage
motorists
to
submit
a
sample
for
chemical
testing
in
the
context
of
an
impaired
driving
case,
and
some
states
cover
the
collection
of
oral
fluid
for
the
for
those
purposes.
C
Another
way
that
many
states
provide
for
the
collection
of
oral
fluid
for
this
purpose
is
just
elsewhere
in
their
dui
statute,
so
it's
not
covered
by
implied
consent,
but
their
dui
law
generally
allows
for
it
and
then
the
last
example
would
be
either
temporary
or
sort
of
longer
term
ability
to
collect
and
to
collect
oral
sample
or
oral
fluid
for
the
purpose
of
detecting
drugs
and
impaired
drivers
for
pilot
or
research
purposes.
And
so
you
heard
darren
mention
the
state
of
michigan.
C
So,
let's
dig
into
this
a
little
bit
more
key
things
that
the
the
law
needs
to
do.
It
needs
to
permit
the
collection
of
a
sample,
and
it
also
needs
to
permit
the
ability
to
test
that
sample
for
drugs
other
than
alcohol.
So
I'll
talk
about
more
than
a
minute
more
about
that
in
a
minute.
So,
right
now,
or
at
least
as
of
october
40
states
check,
can
check
both
boxes
for
blood.
C
So
this
is
really
what
the
lay
of
the
land
looks
like
as
of
october
and,
as
you
can
see,
michigan
is
the
only
state
there
highlighted
in
yellow
because
they
have
their
statewide
pilot
program
and,
as
I
said,
there
are
just
a
few
states
that
in
practice
collect
and
use
oral
fluid
in
the
context
of
impaired
driving
cases
on
the
regular.
And
so
what
I
want
to
do
next
is
dive
into
a
few
examples
of
what
some
states
are
doing
next
slide,
so
in
indiana.
C
C
Only
drug
recognition
experts
collect
oral
fluid
specimens
for
roadside
screening
and
for
confirmation
testing
in
the
lab
next
slide,
so
alabama,
which
many
would
say,
is
sort
of
a
gold
standard
for
how
a
state
could
or
should
run
their
or
the
use
of
well
oral
oral,
fluid
drug
screening
and
or
testing
program.
Should
they
decide
to
move
in
that
direction.
So
in
the
great
state
of
alabama
oral
flute?
Is
the
collection
of
world
food
isn't
covered
by
their
implied
consent
law,
but
is
covered
elsewhere
in
their
dui
law?
C
But
in
the
law
that
passed
there's
one
big
problem
and
that
problem
is
the
way
that
the
law
is
written
in
vermont.
Is
that
the
sample
the
oral
fluid
sample
cannot
be
collected
at
roadside,
and,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
top
of
of
my
time,
together
with
you
today,
the
single
greatest
benefit
of
collecting
or
using
oral
fluid
for
the
purposes
of
detecting
drugs
and
drivers
is
the
ability
to
collect
the
sample
as
close
as
possible
to
the
time
that
the
suspect
was
behind
the
wheel
of
the
car
and
operating
a
motor
vehicle.
C
So
if,
if
in
vermont,
the
law
isn't
sort
of
amended
or
in
terms
of
how
the
program
is
run,
it's
not
changed
to
allow
for
the
collection
of
that
sample
of
the
roadside.
There's
really
no
value
to
having
a
an
eventuary
program
using
oral
fluid
because
we're
sort
of
knocking
the
the
value
of
the
program
out
at
the
knees.
So
it's
really
important
that
that
we
don't
try
to
sort
of
ram
these
programs
through
the
really
do
it
thoughtfully
and
involve
the
right
people
to
make
sure
that
we
don't.
C
I'm
not
even
talking
about
the
use
of
oral
fluid
right
now,
even
just
for
blood
in
those
40
states
that
that
our
blood
states
is
there
are,
are
loopholes
or
exemptions
that
limit
who
can
collect
the
specimen
and
what
kind
of
environment
that
specimen
can
be
collected
regardless
of
who's
collecting
it.
Some
states
allow
the
testing
of
blood
only
for
specific
drugs
like
drugs
are,
are
itemized
in
in
the
law,
rather
than
just
you
know
any
impairing
substance.
C
You
couldn't
be
convicted
of
impaired
driving
in
the
state
of
florida.
For
that
reason,
because
of
that
exemption,
so
these
are
the
kinds
of
I
think,
loopholes
and
exemptions
that
we
should
expect
to
see
as
more
states
move
in
the
direction
of
oral
fluid
drug
screening
under
testing
as
well.
So
we
need
to
be
really
thoughtful
in
the
way
that
we
craft
these
laws
and
form
these
programs
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
how
we
can
do
that
in
just
a
moment.
C
C
So
it's
not
just
state
laws
that
we
need
to
think
about
as
well.
Now
remember:
there
are
23
states
where
the
law
provides
for
the
ability
to
collect
and
test
drugs,
either
at
the
roadside
or
in
laboratory
for
in
the
context
of
impaired
driving
prevention
or
pair
driving
cases.
Sometimes
agency
policy
is
a
huge
barrier
as
well,
and
so
we're
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
now.
Next
slide.
C
So
the
aaa
foundation
did
a
study.
A
year
ago
looking
it
was
really
focused
on
sort
of
ways
to
improve
data,
quality
and
availability
on
drug
impaired
driving,
but
part
of
that
has
to
do
with
the
you
know:
the
use
of
oral
fluid
drug
screening
and
testing
and,
as
part
of
that
study,
we
learned
a
lot
about
what
some
of
the
agency
policy
barriers
are.
C
Not
state
law
barriers,
but
agency
policy
barriers
are
to
moving
in
that
direction,
and
so
one
is
existing
backlogs
at
labs,
and
this
is
even
in
states
where
oral
fluid
isn't
currently
being
tested.
It's
you
know
blood
or
urine
and
if
there's
already
a
backlog,
testing
those
kinds
of
specimen
introducing
another
isn't
going
to
help
that
situation
at
all.
C
So
that's
a
huge
barrier,
the
the
idea
that
not
all
sites,
not
all
of
the
technology
is
created
equal
and
even,
if
you
know,
they're
you're
able
to
educate
people
about
you
know
the
technology
or
the
devices
that
perform
well
as
compared
to
others
who
that
don't
perform
as
well.
There
are
still
some
agent-
you
know,
law
enforcement
agency,
leadership
that
just
don't
buy
into
the
idea
of
oral
fluid
drug
screening
and
or
testing.
So
there's
lots
of
education
there.
That
would
be
important.
C
Is
if
you
have
a
driver
who
is
impaired
and
alcohol
is
one
of
those
substances
and
that
particular
driver's
blood
alcohol
concentration?
Is,
you
know,
0.08
or
above
depending
on
the
state?
There
there's
no
legal
incentive
to
continue
the
investigation
for
drugs
other
than
alcohol.
If
the
charge
will
be
the
same,
the
penalties
and
fines
will
be
the
same.
The
potential
jail
time
will
all
be
the
same.
It's
just
additional
agency
resources
and
time
from
the
officer
to
investigate
further.
So
that's
a
huge
barrier
to
pursuing
drug.
C
So
just
you
know
the
way
that
different
states
are
looking
at
the
use
of
oral
fluid
to
detect
drugs
in
the
context
of
impaired
driving
cases
varies
all
across
the
country.
There
are
strengths
and
limitations
to
roadside
screening
using
oral
fluid,
just
as
there
are
to
confirmation
testing
in
laboratories.
C
Some
states
will
do
both
some
will
do
one
and
not
the
other,
and
others
will
choose
to
stick
with
blood,
and
so
my
goal
here
today
really
is
just
to
share
with
you
sort
of
what
those
strengths
and
limitations
are
not
really
to
push
states
in
one
direction
or
another,
but
to
understand
that,
if
you're
going
to
move
in
the
direction
of
exploring
the
use
of
world
fluid
to
detect
drugs.
In
this
context,
there
are
sort
of
right
ways
and
not
so
great
ways
to
move
forward
to
achieve
that
next
slide.
C
You
know
one
of
the
best
ways
I
think
to
avoid
loopholes
and
laws
like
those
that
I
I
gave
you
examples
of
a
few
moments
ago,
is
to
get
a
diverse
coalition
of
people
within
your
state
together
to
look
at
what
other
states
are
doing
and
to
give
some
thought
to
carefully
crafting
the
law
changes.
The
agency
policy
changes
required
to
get
a
program
up
and
running
that
way.
C
C
You
know
if
we
don't
have
you
know
good
data
on
drug
or
drug
impaired,
driving
within
a
state
and
certainly
across
the
united
states.
Then
we
really
have
no
way
to
accurately
understand
the
magnitude
and
scope
of
the
problem,
and
certainly
we
have
no
way
to
understand
how
well
laws
or
other
interventions
are
working
to
address
it.
So
as
uninteresting
as
fixing
the
data
problem
might
be
to
probably
most
people,
it's
wildly
important
to
making
a
dent
in
this
issue
of
multi-substance,
impaired
driving
and
drug
driving
generally
next
slide.
C
So
it
is
more
complex.
It
is
complicated
a
little
bit
messy,
but
understanding
what
the
strengths
and
limitations
of
using
oral
fluid
to
detect
drugs.
I
think
still
can
help
you
make
the
right
decision
for
your
state
based
on
where
you
want
to
go
in
terms
of
curbing
multi-substance
repair
driving,
so
I'll,
stop
there
and
hand
it
back
to
you.
Samantha.
A
A
The
question
is:
when
will
nitza
establish
measures
on
how
to
scientifically
detect
whether
a
driver
is
impaired
after
consuming
marijuana,
or
should
we
invest
more
in
drug
recognition?
Experts,
and
I
mean
I-
I
think
you
cannot
talk
directly
to
when
niza
will
start
doing
this,
but
maybe
you
can
just
mention
if
you
think
that
we
will
have
a
measure
similar
to
what
we
have
for
alcohol
or
whether
independently
of
whether
we
we
start
using
oral,
fluid
testing
or
other
forms
of
testing,
we
still
need
to
invest
more
in
drug
recognition.
Experts.
B
Okay,
you
know-
I
I
don't
know
if
we'll
ever
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
really
up
to
you-
know
the
national
highway
traffic
city
administration.
To
do
that
necessarily.
But
I
think
that's
where
we
have
to
look
at
what
the
research
and
the
data
is
telling
us
and
do
we
ever
get
a
an
actual
level
to
say
yeah
at
one
nanogram
at
two
nanogram
or
at
three.
B
Will
we
ever
have
numbers
for
cannabis,
meth
heroin,
all
of
those
different
things?
I
I
don't
know-
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that,
but
I
do
know
that
we
need
to
continue
to
invest
in
the
training
and
the
observation
and
the
ability
for
officers
roadside
to
be
able
to
do
that.
One
of
the
things
that
I
heard
in
washington
over
and
over
is
you
know
if
you're
smoking
cannabis,
the
officers
don't
have
a
way
to
detect
it
roadside.
B
Well,
we
do
and
so
officers
that
are
trained
in
recognizing
this
through
good
field
sobriety,
test
training,
the
advanced
roadside,
impaired
driving
enforcement
and
the
drug
recognition
expert
program.
We
need
to
continue
to
help,
invest
in
those
arenas.
We
also
can
see
where
there's
potentially
the
technologies,
as
just
mentioned.
As
far
as
oral
screening
tests,
I
mean
we've
heard
of
you-
know
cannabis.
Breathalyzers,
we've
heard
of
all
these
different
things,
but
really
you
know,
we've
got
to
go
back
to
the
good
old
part
of
this
is.
C
I
mean
I
agree
with
generally
with
the
comments
that
darren
said.
I
don't
think
it's
a
matter
of
interest
or
willingness
from
nitsa
to
have
an
answer
to
that
question.
I
think
if,
if
they
could
they
would
it's
just
super
complex
and
really
hard?
I
mean
our
own
research
at
the
triple
a
foundation
tried
to
look
for
a
meaningful
number
concentration
of
of
active
thc,
on
which
we
could
base
a
per
se
standard
and
we
couldn't
find
one,
and
it
was
a
pretty
rigorous
analysis
that
we
did
so.
A
C
Well,
I
mean,
I
think
that
I'm
not
sure
that
there's
value
in
having
the
results
of
a
roadside
screen
become
evidentiary
right.
If
you
can
collect
a
sample
at
the
roadside
after
completing
the
roadside
screen
and
send
it
to
the
lab,
then
we
already
have
a
scenario
where
those
results
are
evidentiary.
They
can
be
admissible
in
court
and
be
used
in
the
context
of
a
dui
court
case.
A
And
I
want
to
be
conscious
of
time,
so
this
will
be
our
last
question
for
jake
too.
I
understand
that
we
can't
say
impairment
or
can
deduce
impairment
from
an
oral
swap.
However,
could
we
say
it
is
psychoactive
in
their
system
for
certain
and
I'm
guessing
the
person
asking
is
talking
about
states
where
there
is
a
zero
tolerance
law
or
something
like
that,
and
then
obviously
there
would
be
impairment
in
that
case,.
C
Your
tolerance
is
gonna,
be
very
different
compared
to
somebody
who
uses
every
once
in
a
while
or
uses
for
the
very
first
time.
So
it
will
take
very
much
less
of
the
impairing
substance
to
create
a
psychoactive
result
as
compared
to
somebody
who
uses
all
the
time.
So
it's
just
messy
it
depends.
It
depends
on
a
variety
of
factors,
even
many
beyond
just
whether
you're,
a
habitual
user
or
an
infrequent
user,
the
amount
of
fat
you
have
in
your
body
versus
muscle.
There
are
all
kinds
of
the
other
drugs
that
you're
taking.