Yesterday, the Ohio House Judiciary Committee convened for the second hearing of Sub. S.B. No. 55, a bill that would fundamentally overhaul how the state handles marijuana-impaired driving. Sponsored by Senator Nathan Manning, the legislation aims to update Ohio’s OVI (Operating Vehicle Impaired) laws by distinguishing between “active” impairment and the lingering presence of past drug use.
The hearing, reserved for proponent testimony, featured a technical debate on toxicology and a push to align the law with scientific reality regarding how the human body processes cannabis.
The Core Change: From “Presence” to “Impairment”
Currently, Ohio law utilizes “Per Se” limits (automatic guilt) that punish drivers for the presence of “marijuana metabolites”—byproducts that remain in the system long after any psychoactive effects of cannabis wear off. Sub. S.B. No. 55 proposes three major shifts:
- Raising the Limit: The bill increases the prohibited concentration of active THC in whole blood from 2 ng/mL to 5 ng/mL.
- Removing Metabolites: It removes marijuana metabolites (specifically THC-COOH) and urine testing from the “per se” category entirely, stopping the penalization of drivers who are not currently impaired.
- The “Inference” Standard: For lower levels of THC (between 2–5 ng/mL in blood, or specific levels in urine/oral fluid), the bill creates a “rebuttable inference.” This means a prosecutor can argue a driver was impaired, but the defense can rebut the claim with other evidence.
The Hearing: The “Recycling Bin” Argument
Bryan Hawkins, representing the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (OACDL), was the sole witness to provide oral testimony at the Feburary 18th hearing. Hawkins argued that current laws punish “innocent people” by allowing convictions based on inert waste products.
He illustrated the flaw in the current system with a relatable analogy:
Charging someone for OVI based on metabolites “would be like charging somebody for an alcohol-related OVI because the officer saw them pull into their driveway and then noticed a bunch of empty beer cans in their recycling bin”.
Hawkins contended that metabolites only prove a person consumed marijuana “at some undefined point in the past,” potentially weeks prior, rather than proving active impairment.
Hawkins’ full testimony is in the video above.
The Debate: Is Cannabis a “Special Carve Out”?
The hearing intensified during a back-and-forth between Hawkins and Representative Williams. Rep. Williams questioned why marijuana requires a complex “inference” system rather than a strict “per se” limit like alcohol, opiates, or cocaine.
“Why are we going to treat alcohol and marijuana differently… I don’t get why we’re going to have this special carve out,” Williams asked.
Hawkins rebutted that marijuana is a “round peg” that cannot fit into the “square hole” of alcohol enforcement because they metabolize differently. While alcohol impairment drops linearly as blood levels drop, marijuana lingers in the body as waste products, meaning a strict limit on metabolites punishes sobriety.
Proponent Testimony: The “Fire and Ash” Analogy
Written testimony submitted by the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) and the ACLU of Ohio reinforced the need for change. D. Tim Huey of the OSBA provided a vivid analogy to explain the chemistry:
- Delta-9 THC is the “Fire”: The active ingredient causing impairment.
- Hydroxy-THC is the “Embers”: A metabolite with minor potential.
- Carboxy-THC is the “Ash”: The completely inactive waste product.
Huey argued that Ohio currently punishes drivers for having “ash” in their system, which is scientifically invalid for determining impairment. The ACLU echoed this, calling current metabolite thresholds “arbitrary” and unscientific, though they expressed caution regarding how judges might weigh the new “inference” evidence.
The Science vs. The Law
The legislative push is supported by a growing body of toxicological research suggesting that “Per Se” limits for cannabis are inherently flawed.
1. The Disconnect on Limits According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a quantitative threshold for THC cannot be scientifically supported. In one study, 70% of arrested drivers had THC levels below 5 ng/mL yet showed signs of impairment, while others above that limit performed adequately.
2. The Regular User Paradox Regular cannabis users often have baseline blood THC levels exceeding legal limits (e.g., >2 ng/mL) even after 48 hours of abstinence. This creates a risk where a sober, regular user could fail a blood test days after their last use.
3. The “Reintoxication” Phenomenon Complicating matters further is the fact that THC is lipophilic (stored in fat). Research indicates that stress, fasting, or intense exercise can release “dormant” THC from fat stores back into the bloodstream. This means a person could theoretically test higher for THC after a workout, even without recent use.
Looking Ahead
The bill has already passed the Ohio Senate unanimously (28-0) as of October 2025. If passed by the House, the fiscal impact on local criminal justice systems is expected to be minimal, though the state may see a slight reduction in reinstatement fee revenue due to fewer automatic license suspensions.
As Ohio grapples with the legalization of cannabis, Sub. S.B. 55 represents a significant attempt to modernize road safety laws, shifting the legal focus from the biological history of drug use to the immediate reality of impaired driving.
Have opinions to share with MedicateOH about the state’s impaired driving laws with respect to cannabis? Email us here.
Follow MedicateOH on our socials and subscribe to our weekly newsletter to get the latest news about the cannabis industry, legislation and user’s rights in Ohio.
###
Learn More from the Resources used for this Article:
Beirness, D. J., Kacinko, S. L., & Logan, B. (2018, June 14). An Evaluation of Data from Drivers Arrested for Driving Under the Influence in Relation to Per se Limits for Cannabis. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety -. https://aaafoundation.org/evaluation-data-drivers-arrested-driving-influence-relation-per-se-limits-cannabis/
Cannabis and driving. (2024, February 22). Cannabis and Public Health. https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/driving.html
Connors, N., Kosnett, M. J., Kulig, K., Nelson, L. S., & Stolbach, A. I. (2020). ACMT Position Statement: Interpretation of urine for tetrahydrocannabinol metabolites. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 16(2), 240–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-019-00753-8
Favretto, D., Visentin, C., Aprile, A., Terranova, C., & Cinquetti, A. (2023). Driving under the influence of cannabis: A 5-year retrospective Italian study. Forensic Science International, 353, 111854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111854
Fitzgerald, R. L., Umlauf, A., Suhandynata, R. T., Grelotti, D. J., Huestis, M. A., Mastropietro, K. F., Grant, I., & Marcotte, T. D. (2025). Per Se Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis Statutes and Blood Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Concentrations following Short-Term Cannabis Abstinence. Clinical Chemistry, 71(12), 1225–1233. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaf121
Gunasekaran, N., Long, L., Dawson, B., Hansen, G., Richardson, D., Li, K., Arnold, J., & McGregor, I. (2009). Reintoxication: the release of fat‐stored Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) into blood is enhanced by food deprivation or ACTH exposure. British Journal of Pharmacology, 158(5), 1330–1337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00399.x
Legislating Marijuana Impaired Driving | Moritz College of Law. (2026). https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty-and-research/drug-enforcement-and-policy-center/research-and-grants/policy-and-data-analyses/legislating-marijuana-impaired-driving
Metrik, J., Bush, N., Gunn, R. L., & McCarthy, D. M. (2026). Recent advances in the science of Cannabis-Impaired driving. Current Addiction Reports, 13(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-025-00712-0
Reintoxication: the release of fat-stored Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) into blood is enhanced by food deprivation or ACTH exposure. (n.d.). https://hero.epa.gov/reference/476824/
Salas-Wright, C. P., Hai, A. H., Vaughn, M. G., Hodges, J. C., & Goings, T.
