Drug Per Se Laws: A Review of Their Use in the States [Traffic Tech]

NHTSA · 2010 · ROSA P / United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This report reviews the implementation and effectiveness of drug per se laws in the United States, addressing the challenge of prosecuting drivers impaired by drugs other than alcohol. Unlike alcohol-impaired driving, which relies on a scientifically established blood alcohol concentration threshold of 0.08 g/dL, drug impairment lacks a specific bodily fluid concentration indicative of impairment. Consequently, successful prosecutions typically require combining behavioral evidence of impairment with evidence of drug use. The study, conducted by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), aimed to determine the extent of these laws’ use, document concerns regarding their enforcement, and assess whether they increase driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) arrests and convictions. The research methodology involved qualitative interviews with state officials, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers in six states: Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan (which have drug per se laws), and Colorado and West Virginia (which do not). The study also examined the presence of Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) programs in these jurisdictions. The design intended to compare DUID arrest and conviction data pre- and post-enactment of per se laws, as well as between states with and without such laws. The report notes that several states have implemented various forms of per se laws, including prohibitions on specified substances, zero-tolerance laws for drivers under 21, and bans on driving for drug addicts or habitual users. Key findings indicate that sufficient data were not available to determine if drug per se laws increase arrests or convictions. In many states, DUID offenses are subsumed within general impaired-driving charges, making it impossible to distinguish between alcohol and drug-related arrests in official records. Furthermore, some states could not provide overall impaired-driving arrest or conviction data. Despite these data limitations, most prosecutors and officers in states with per se laws believed the laws were beneficial, citing high conviction rates and fewer trials due to blood analysis evidence. Conversely, officials in states without per se laws did not feel hindered, noting that cases involving officers trained in drug recognition often result in guilty pleas. A significant operational finding was that in cases involving both alcohol and drugs, prosecutors typically pursued only the alcohol charge, as drug use often carried no additional sanction.

Key finding

Because many States record DUID within a combined impaired-driving offense that does not distinguish alcohol from drugs, available data were insufficient to show whether drug per se laws increase DUID arrests or convictions.

Methodology

mixed_methods

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (7 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement
• illicit drugs
• drowsy as impairment