Ohio lawmakers look to increase THC limits for driving
Photo by WEWS.
A new bill in Ohio would double the amount of THC a driver can have in their system.
Recreational marijuana is now widely available for adults across Ohio, but state Sen. Nathan Manning, R-North Ridgeville, said laws are outdated and negatively impacting innocent drivers.
'Whether you like it or not, marijuana is legal,' the Republican, a former prosecutor, said. 'We don't want to punish people for doing something that's legal.'
In November 2023, voters overwhelmingly passed Issue 2 — which allowed adults 21 years of age and older to smoke, vape, and ingest weed. Individual Ohioans are able to grow up to six plants with up to 12 per household. Dispensaries have been able to sell recreationally since Aug. 6, 2024.
'Marijuana users could be convicted of an OVI even if they are not under the influence,' Manning continued, referencing the crime of operating a vehicle impaired.
THC, the psychoactive substance in cannabis, can remain in your system for weeks without affecting you.
Case Western Reserve University medical law professor Sharona Hoffman explained that drug tests aren't always practical with timing. They can show inactive metabolites, which may not accurately show impairment.
'If you have a tiny bit of marijuana in your body, you may be able to still drive safely,' Hoffman said. 'So we need experts to determine at what level you really become a danger on the roads.'
Research compiled by Healthline shows that cannabis can be detected:
• In blood for up to 12 hours unless you are a 'chronic heavy user,' showing it has been detected for 30 days.
• In saliva for up to 24 hours unless you use it frequently, which could lead to detection at 72 hours.
• In urine for three to 30 days, depending on usage.
• In hair follicles for up to 90 days, no matter usage.
This is why Manning introduced Senate Bill 55, which would double the amount of THC a driver can have in their system. Although he is the sole sponsor of it, numerous lawmakers on each side of the aisle said they would support it.
This bill changes the 'per se' and 'evidentiary' criminal amounts related to THC.
Per se, in this context, means that if law enforcement finds a certain amount, it's automatically a violation of law. The bill also talks about evidentiary standards or inferences, so if police find a specific amount, the judge can infer a violation even though it's not automatic.
Right now, a driver will be arrested for two nanograms of THC per milliliter in their blood or 10 nanograms in urine.
Working with medical experts, Manning proposed raising the amount from two nanograms of THC in a person's blood to 5 nanograms.
The bill takes away the measurement in the urine count for an automatic violation, instead making a new evidentiary standard of 25 nanograms.
In English, this means that if someone has 25 nanograms of THC in their urine, prosecutors can argue to a judge that they were intoxicated.
'It's just not accurate for recent usage,' Manning said.
The bill also says that the same evidentiary argument could be made for someone who has between two but less than five nanograms in their blood.
Law enforcement officials say that this could make their jobs harder.
'Our concern is always public safety first,' Jay McDonald with the Fraternal Order of Police said. 'We don't believe that increasing the levels of marijuana you're allowed to have in your system is conducive to increasing public safety.'
Prosecuting Attorneys Association's Lou Tobin added that deciding the amount of THC that actually causes impairment for each person will be tough.
'Certainly, we don't condone people driving while they're intoxicated,' Tobin said. 'We don't condone people driving while there's marijuana in their system.'
But a new, quicker way to determine high drivers is in progress. Last year, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill to allow police to use rapid roadside saliva testing. But it isn't widely available — and Tobin said it will come at a price.
'We need more money for enforcement,' he said. 'Law enforcement needs to update their technology to do improved testing of marijuana-impaired driving.'
Manning said he plans to work with experts and police to ensure safety matters more than the cost since these tests will cost local governments or the state money.
'I certainly would support trying to find funding to help, whether it's the troopers or local law enforcement, get those tests available,' the Republican said.
Tobin had another idea, one that many legislators agree with.
'I think using a portion of the [marijuana tax] funds to pay for law enforcement and to protect our roadways should be a priority,' he said.
Currently, the Ohio legislature is debating whether to dramatically change marijuana policy.
One of the changes would be to revise the tax and revenue structures.
Manning has also been working for years on other legislation to help expunge low-level marijuana convictions.
In this bill, helping prevent innocent people from facing OVIs and easing the load on law enforcement is his goal.
'I think law enforcement is probably seeing an uptick in usage, obviously, — that's normal with it being legalized,' the lawmaker said. '[Police are] doing a really good job of trying to weed out those situations where they might have a suspicion somebody uses marijuana.'
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Republicans are also sweating Medicaid cuts in Big Beautiful Bill, poll finds
More than four in 10 Republicans are worried about the Medicaid cuts being contemplated as a part of President Donald Trump's domestic policy mega-bill, a reminder that key parts of President Donald Trump's base also stand to be adversely impacted by the sprawling legislation. One-third of respondents to the new KFF poll identify as MAGA Republicans, reflecting the overall enrollment in the joint state/federal health care program. Among enrollees, more than a quarter are Republican, including 1 in 5 who identify as MAGA Republicans, according to the pollWhil. Republicans who control the U.S. Senate now have the bill, which passed the U.S. House by a single vote late last month. The upper chamber is contemplating its own changes to the legislation, which would blow up the deficit and impose sweeping social service cuts as it seeks to make Trump's first-term tax cuts permanent. The poll found that a large majority of rural Americans and those with lower household incomes, another key part of Trump's base, are worried that Medicaid reductions would lead to more children and adults losing coverage. They said they also feared it would harm health care providers in their communities and make it more difficult for them and their families to access care, according to the poll. Those findings broke down along partisan lines. Nonetheless, half of rural Republicans said they were worried about people becoming uninsured, according to the poll. Rural health care providers, who often rely on Medicaid funding, may be "especially vulnerable to the decreased federal spending included in the reconciliation bill," according to KFF pollsters. Public views on how the Republican White House's policies will impact the nation's health care system are largely partisan. But overall, most of the public says the administration's policies will weaken Medicaid and Medicare, including most Democrats and independents. Republicans said they expect those policies to strengthen or have no impact on these programs. Read More: A 'historic battle': Mass pols protest Medicaid cuts in 'Big Beautiful Bill' | John L. Micek Among Republican Medicaid enrollees, however, 'views are mixed with similar shares saying the policies will strengthen, weaken, or have no impact on the program they rely on,' according to the poll. In Massachusetts, Democratic Gov. Maura Healey and her allies in the state Legislature have predicted grim consequences for MassHealth, as Medicaid is known in the Bay State. As it's currently written, the bill that passed the U.S. House by a single vote last week would reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $700 billion over a decade, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. That would cost the state's health care system $1.75 billion, affecting 250,000 people statewide, MassLive previously reported. This is my classroom. ICE isn't welcome here. What a monk, a librarian and a dentist have to do with Harvard's fight with Trump Harvard relinquishes possession of slave photos after years-long dispute Trump says Musk has 'lost his mind' as he disses peace offering Judge blocks Trump admin from banning Harvard international students from entering US Read the original article on MassLive.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Republicans in Congress have been pushing for major Medicaid cuts in the new budget, many Medicaid enrollees are worried about what this means for their health coverage — including those who identify as Republican. A new poll from KFF revealed that 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid are worried about potential funding cuts. The survey also shows that 17 percent of Republicans identify as Medicaid enrollees. This didn't come as a surprise to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. Why It Matters Republican lawmakers have advanced sweeping changes to Medicaid as part of their budget reconciliation package, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The bill, which passed the House in late May 2025, proposes to cut over $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending, threatening coverage for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage if the proposal becomes law. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Potential Medicaid reductions under the new legislation target several key areas, including the federal match for Medicaid expansion, spending caps, new work requirements, and more frequent eligibility checks. While the GOP viewpoint has historically been pro-Medicaid reductions, cuts at this level could significantly impact the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on the program for health insurance, including a significant number of Republicans. In the new KFF report, 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid said they were worried about potential funding cuts. Additionally, more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees are Republican, including one in five who identify with MAGA. "As a government program, Medicaid provides benefits to millions of Americans in 'red' and 'blue' states," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "As such, it should come as no surprise a sizable number of Republicans either receive benefits from the program or know someone who does." The federal government currently pays 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs, but proposed reductions would lower this rate, threatening financial stability for states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Changes could also introduce per-capita caps or block grants, limit the use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, and roll back simplified enrollment rules implemented under President Biden. Together, these measures could force states to limit enrollment, reduce benefits, or impose new costs on enrollees. Republican leaders have tied these reductions to broader budget goals, including $4.5 trillion in tax cuts championed by former President Donald Trump. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Thompson told Newsweek. "That's not meant to be disingenuous—it simply shows where the power lies: with the wealthy who control the districts and seats in those regions. The truth is, people often vote for their party and don't believe these policies will ever impact them personally—until they do." House Republicans identified more than $880 billion in savings from Medicaid, with much of the debate focused on whether Medicaid should continue to support able-bodied adults without dependents, or remain narrowly focused on children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The bill would also restrict Medicaid funding for certain health care providers, such as Planned Parenthood, and prohibit federal matching funds for gender-affirming care for minors. Nationally, 54 percent of U.S. adults are worried that reductions in federal Medicaid spending would negatively impact their own or their family's ability to get and pay for health care, the KFF report found. "It's a wake-up call for anyone who thinks Medicaid is just a Democratic issue," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek. "Medicaid isn't red or blue. It's the safety net stretched under millions of American families, including a significant slice of the GOP base." What People Are Saying Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Over the last three election cycles, the Republican base has expanded far past the days of simply promoting tax cuts and has a large number of supporters who rely on programs like Medicaid for essential services. And while cuts to the program could occur, we've already seen blowback to any proposed reductions. That's more than likely because some Republican members of Congress know cuts could dramatically affect their reelection chances." Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek: "There's a real disconnect between the political talking points and reality. Many Republican voters may not realize just how much their communities (especially rural ones) depend on Medicaid to keep hospitals open and doctors in town. The myth that Medicaid is for 'someone else' is crumbling fast." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There will be a significant number of people kicked off the Medicaid program—either because they didn't submit their work requirements on time, were removed due to the rollback of Medicaid expansion, or simply no longer qualify." What Happens Next Ryan said if the cuts are enacted, rural hospitals will close, and working-class families will lose their health coverage. "The fallout will land squarely in the heart of Republican country," Ryan said. "You can't gut the safety net and expect your own voters to walk away unscathed." "Medicaid cuts are political dynamite. History shows voters punish politicians who take away health coverage. Just ask Missouri and Tennessee. If Republicans push too hard, they risk alienating their own base."
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pharmacy benefit managers wield significant influence over patient care, costs
Multiple Republican-led states have sued to rescind a federal rule keeping the records of those who sought legal reproductive care private, while a federal judge in Texas is questioning the constitutionality of the federal HIPAA law in its entirety. (Photo by) As a physician, I have witnessed firsthand the inefficiencies in our health care system that make it harder for patients to access the care they need. One of these complexities patients now have to navigate is a growing industry of insurance middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), whose practices meddling in our local health system increase health care costs and block access to critical medications. PBMs work between health insurance companies and drug manufacturers to negotiate lower drug prices for the health plans they represent. Their function and influence in the health care industry have evolved significantly, and today, PBMs operate with very little oversight or transparency and their decisions are often based on what is most profitable for a health plan rather than what is best for a patient. PBMs wield significant influence over what treatments patients can access and how much they will be required to pay. These middlemen receive significant rebates and discounts from pharmaceutical manufacturers for the cost of medications and treatments after negotiations, but they don't pass those savings on to patients receiving the care, increasing what patients are required to pay out of pocket when they pick up their medication at the pharmacy counter. PBMs can also require only certain drugs be covered by a health plan, impose arbitrary rules around access to provider-prescribed medications, and PBM revenue is often directly linked to the list price of a medicine, so PBMs are incentivized to recommend treatments that would yield the most profit. The three largest PBMs – CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx – manage nearly 80% of prescription drug claims for 270 million people across the country. To make matters worse, PBMs are increasingly integrating and consolidating with other health care services, including distributors and pharmacies, making the influence PBMs hold over the health care system even larger. As these for-profit entities merge and collaborate, it's unclear if the system is actually functioning in the best interest of patients regarding quality and cost of care. PBMs have flown under the radar for far too long, but scrutiny of these middlemen and their impact on our health care system has rightfully grown in recent years, with many federal and state policymakers and regulators calling attention to the outsized role PBMs play in driving up health care costs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that PBM integration with chain pharmacies and insurers has allowed them to dominate the broader health system and that PBMs have significant control over what drugs are available to patients and how much they are required to pay. The FTC even filed suit against the three of the nation's largest PBMs, citing their anticompetitive tactics as a barrier to health care access. In addition, numerous investigations found that PBMs often act in their own financial interest, including pushing patients toward drugs with higher out-of-pocket costs because it's more profitable for the PBM. Access to consistent treatments is necessary for Louisiana patients, particularly those living with chronic health conditions or hard-to-treat illnesses such as cancer. Each year, more than 25,000 Louisianans receive a new cancer diagnosis. Alleviating access and financial barriers to care is a necessary step to improving health outcomes for patients. It is overwhelmingly clear that we must take action to reform PBM practices to improve access to care for patients and stop letting middlemen meddle in our health system. There has never been a time when we can do more for patients as doctors, but at the same time, there has never been a time when we have more complexities in the health care systems impede healthcare access and affordability. This 'profit over patients' business model is putting critical care out of reach for many Louisiana patients. Time is overdue to curb harmful PBM practices.
