I'm sorry, but the site appears to be of dubious value, where its principal authority is a publication of the American Prosecutors Research Institute ("produced thanks to a charitable contribution from the Anheuser-Busch Foundation"). http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/drug_toxicol...ecutors_04.pdf Of course a per se standard is the easiest way of assuring prosecutions, but it's built on an assumption that's not supported by the medical literature: that any measurable amount of certain drugs in your system makes you an unsafe diver. But the only reason they take the position in the first place is because they don't want to go to the burden and expense of setting precise limits through verified medical studies standards and relatively exacting testing, in order to set and enforce limits, as we have done with alcohol. And, as set forth below, Nevada has apparently done with certain NON-OPIOID controlled substances.

But a matter of convenience to the state does not make a criminal statute constitutional in the presence of a less intrusive alternative. And none of this web-site's cited cases on constitutionality are to the contrary, or for that matter, have anything to do with per se standards.

Finally, having looked at what little was in their link, I highly doubt that California will be next to take the plunge. And if it did, it would be my pleasure to be part of a class action seeking immediate declaratory relief on the federal constitutional question in the courts of the Ninth Circuit. And to that end, based on the table Ballerina kindly brings to our attention http://druggeddriving.org/legal.html#table please note that Nevada's statute is ANYTHING BUT PER SE: it lists the specific concentrations of each drug that would put someone over the limit, even heroin!!!

DITTO OHIO AND VIRGINIA!!!

Mike

PS And just so there is no misunderstanding, I'm not disagreeing with a friend, only her cited authority.