Suspected stoned drivers should be required to submit to blood and saliva tests — or lose their license to drive for refusing — in a new push to keep drugged drivers off the road, a pot panel ordered to recommend solutions states in its long-awaited report.

The Special Commission on Operating Under the Influence and Impaired Driving is listing 19 steps that should be taken right away — and is specifically looking to change the laws to allow for tougher testing of suspected pot-using drivers.

Allowing police to take “oral fluid or blood samples” to help prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a suspected drugged driver was under the influence of THC, the active ingredient in pot, will require a change in the OUI law and is a top priority, the panel states.

Educating the public on the dangers of driving while high is also stressed, according to a copy of the report obtained by the Herald today. But the state’s impaired driving laws are woefully out of date, the panel adds.

“If a driver is suspected of driving while impaired under the influence of an intoxicating substance other than alcohol, the driver can refuse a test with no license suspension implications,” the subcommittee reports.

The panel urges the Legislature to adopt tough anti-drugged-driving laws rolled out in New Hampshire and California that allow police to prove a driver was impaired and not list exactly how (i.e. alcohol, pot or some other substance.)

“This burden to prove the specific category – and not just impairment – does not take into account that motorists may be under the influence of multiple substances and fails to further the interests of justice,” the panel reports.

To help push back against pot users, the committee’s 19 recommendations are:

1. The Special Commission accepts the findings of research which establish that the ingestion of THC can and does cause impairment in motorists. THC impairs motor function, reaction time, tracking, cognitive attention, decision-making, judgment, perception, peripheral vision, impulse control, and memory. Ingestion of THC does not enhance a motorist’s ability to safely operate a vehicle. | Voted: 9-0

2. The Legislature should adopt a statute authorizing courts to take judicial notice relative to Recommendation 1. | Voted: 9-0

3. The Special Commission, or a similar commission, should be continued. It should meet regularly to study, review, and evaluate the reliability of oral fluid and other testing, as well as the practical availability of experts. This continued evaluation should be 15 supported with adequate funding and the Special Commission should be required to report periodically on its progress. | Voted: 9-0

4. Within the coming year, educational materials and programming should be made available to, and in collaboration with, the Massachusetts Judges Conference, relative to the Drug Recognition Expert program. This training should be developed collaboratively by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Commonwealth’s Highway Safety Division, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, and the Commonwealth’s statewide DRE coordinator. | Voted: 9-0

5. The Commonwealth should train a minimum of 351 Drug Recognition Experts, as well as several DREs to be deployed by the Massachusetts State Police. | Voted: 8-0

6. The Legislature should amend the existing open-container of alcohol law (G. L. c. 90, § 24I), to include cannabis. Currently, open-container of cannabis is governed by G. L. Ch. c. 94G, § 13(d), which requires any violation to be written on a ticket specific to that municipality. The Special Commission does not recommend modifying the penalties for the civil offense but recommends that the violation be written as a civil motor vehicle citation, similar to that of open-container of alcohol. | Voted: 10-0

7. The Legislature should adopt a statute allowing Drug Recognition Experts to testify as expert witnesses, thus allowing them to testify in court regarding their evaluations and findings. | Voted: 8-1 (ACLU opposed)

8. The Commonwealth should ensure that all police officers, through the Municipal Police Training Committee, be Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) certified, with funds for training and any related expenses to come from the Marijuana Regulation Fund. | Voted: 8-0

9. Consistent with current law regarding breath or blood testing for suspected alcohol impairment (G. L. c. 90, § 24), the Legislature should enact implied consent to oral fluid, breath or evaluation by a Drug Recognition Expert for suspected drugged driving, with the loss of license as the incentive to compliance. (Voted: 8-1, ACLU opposed) In the case of an evaluation by a Drug Recognition Expert, the implied consent should reflect only those non-testimonial elements of the examination. (Voted: 8-1, ACLU opposed)

10. The Legislature should adopt a statute recognizing, consistent with a resolution adopted by the American Optometric Association, the effectiveness and validity of the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, and further enable a properly administered test to be admissible upon testimony of the officer without requiring the use of expert testimony. | Vote: 8-2 (ACLU and Atty. Elikann opposed)

11. To reduce delays in securing accurate and timely samples, the Legislature should amend the law (G. L. c. 276, § 2B) to permit electronic warrants, accompanied by sworn affidavits, for the collection of oral fluid or blood samples. | Voted: 9-1 (ACLU opposed. In dissent, ACLU proposed that warrants should only be authorized by judges, as opposed to both magistrates and judges)

12. The Legislature should facilitate the use of judicially authorized search warrants to efficiently and humanely acquire blood samples in order to test for drugs and alcohol by 16 requiring that hospitals or other entities licensed or authorized to draw blood in the Commonwealth comply with the request to do so, that said facility be compensated at a rate set by the Commonwealth but consistent with the rate for any walk-in patient, and that the professional and facility be protected from liability. | Voted: 10-0

13. The Commonwealth should continue to develop and fund public awareness and education campaigns outlining the dangers of impaired driving, in addition to the safe and responsible use of cannabis. | Voted: 10-0

14. The Commonwealth should add a drug impaired driving module to the drivers’ education curriculum. | Voted: 10-0

15. All marijuana establishments should continue to be required to provide educational materials to consumers, and those materials should include messaging relative to the dangers of impaired driving and the imposition of penalties. | Voted: 9-0

16. The Legislature should amend the operating under the influence (OUI) statute (G. L. c. 90, § 24) to require proof only that a motorist was operating under the influence of alcohol or any substance, similar statutes in California and New Hampshire. Current law requires the Commonwealth to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, not just that a motorist was impaired by a substance (alcoholic beverage, marijuana, a narcotic drug, a stimulant or depressant, or the toxic fumes of any substance), but the category of the substance that caused the impairment. This burden to prove the specific category – and not just impairment – does not take into account that motorists may be under the influence of multiple substances and fails to further the interests of justice. | Voted: 10-0

17. The Commonwealth should reverse the Appeals Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Shellenberger, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 70, 76 (2005), which suggested that evidence of the presence of a drug in a defendant’s system requires evidence of the concentration of the drug as a precondition to admissibility. Although several unpublished opinions have rejected this argument, this case has not been overruled. The Legislature should amend the OUI statute clarifying that the absence of concentration evidence in an OUI case goes to the weight of the evidence, and not to its admissibility. | Voted: 10-0

18. The Legislature should amend the OUI statute (G. L. c. 90, § 24) to eliminate the requirement that a motor vehicle must be operated on “a public way.” Impaired operation can occur in a variety of non-public environments (i.e. gated communities, fields, campsites, etc.) and should not be limited unnecessarily. | Voted: 9-0-1 (ACLU abstention)

19. The Legislature should amend the statute pertaining to motor vehicle traffic stops (G. L. c. 90, § 25), to require that, when asked, motorists roll down their window to facilitate an interaction with the officer. | Voted: 8-1 (ACLU opposed)