The state of Nevada is poised to mandate the use blood tests and eliminate urine tests in DUI convictions for marijuana.

Although Washoe County already uses blood tests for pot, the state Senate this week gave the final vote of approval for the testing change for the entire state. Now, this measure only needs the final ‘John Hancock’ from Gov. Brian Sandoval to become law.

The final Senate vote floor vote comes less than two months before the July 1 starting date for sales of legal marijuana for “recreation” across Nevada for everyone 21 and over.

The blood-test/pot bill’s sponsor, Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair Steve Yeager, D-Las Vegas, sold the bill to fellow lawmakers as a “common sense” approach to DUI testing for pot. Current urine testing for pot is not reliable because it does not test for the psychoactive element that gets you high -- THC, he said.

“A urine test will tell you if someone has ingested marijuana in the past,” Yeager said on Nevada Newsmakers. “But it does not tell you if the person is actually impaired at the time the testing is done.”

Blood tests can reveal THC in the blood, Yeager said. He called it “a step in the right direction.”

Yet this is not a perfect science. Determining marijuana impairment is more complicated than determining alcohol impairment, according to a study by the AAA, the nation’s largest auto club.

Yeager’s bill may be an improvement over the old method but it is still not a great way to test for marijuana intoxication, according to the AAA.

That study states it is not possible to set a blood-test threshold for THC impairment because there is no science that shows at what level drivers become high after ingesting THC, according to a CBS News story about the AAA report.

Some drivers with high levels of THC in their blood may not be impaired, especially if they are heavy pot users, the study stated. Others, who may not use marijuana often, could have relatively low levels of THC in their blood and be impaired for driving, according to the study.

In Nevada, however, almost any amount of THC in the blood will get you into trouble. The legal limit is 2 nanograms of active THC in the blood, which Yeager said is a very low limit.

“I’ll just say, our levels and laws are very, very low. So it is virtually impossible to test positive on a blood test and not be over the allowed limits under the (Nevada) statute,” Yeager said.

Nevada is about to embark on society-changing era where marijuana is legal. The AAA study, however is concerning. It suggests consuming this herb can make you a victim of a legal system that has no universally-accepted and accurate way of testing for DUI marijuana.

Perhaps Yeager’s bill will give Nevada a law based on the best technology available. It appears better than the current system.

Yet science marches on.

Yeager believes that the question of testing for marijuana DUI may need adjustments in the near future. It is a subject that the Legislature may need to revisit when better technology and testing methods become available, since this legal recreational pot business is projected to be popular and profitable in Nevada.

“I think everyone is open-mined about it,” Yeager said about marijuana DUI testing. “It (possible new state law) is a small step forward. But I think it is significant in that it gets us moving in the right direction. Hopefully, we’ll have some studies in the near future so we can continue to tweak these laws.”

Will insurance ever cover medical marijuana?

By July 1, those over 21 years of age will be able to purchase recreational marijuana in Nevada. So does this make Nevada’s medical marijuana program obsolete?

No, says Assemblyman Nelson Araujo, D-Las Vegas. Already, medical marijuana card-holders enjoy reduction of fees. Also, Araujo has a bill that makes adjustments to Nevada’s medical marijuana laws to help those who use it specifically to fight seizures, pain, PTSD and other serious health issues.

First, Araujo’s bill would stop the tracking of patients’ purchases and other data. No medical records. No social security numbers. Why should the state act like Big Brother for the medical marijuana patients when pot is legal for everyone over 21?

Although patients would still need a prescription from a doctor, Araujo’s bill removes the $100 fee for a medical marijuana card.

Plus, the cards would only need to be renewed every other year instead of annually.

(Why can’t the DMV do that for car registration?)

Eventually, Araujo and other Democrats hope insurance companies will cover the cost of medical marijuana prescriptions -- much like they do now with prescription pain killers and other pills.

“Yes, that is part of the goal,” Araujo said. “Some insurance companies are starting to gravitate toward accepting medical marijuana patients. That is a part of our reason for preserving it (medical marijuana program).”

The bill, however, does not address insurance coverage.

Marijuana is still illegal under federal law and that may factor into any possible medical-marijuana-insurance-coverage, Yeager said.

“My only hesitation there is that insurance companies have some federal mandates that they have to comply with,” Yeager said. “So to the extent that those conflict ... there might be some issues but I certainly hope we move in that direction.”

If insurance covers pain pills, it should cover medicinal marijuana, Yeager said.

“These (insurance) companies now cover opiates and other medications that, particularly in Southern Nevada, have been extremely detrimental in terms of the opioid addiction problem,” Yeager said.

“By last calculation, opioid overdose is the No. 1 cause of death in Clark County -- prescription drug overdose,” Yeager said. “So my hope is that as we move forward with this, insurance companies would cover that because I think it is a much safer alternative than the opiates that are out there now.”

Sexual harassment issue at Legislature

One would think sexual harassment may be part of the culture at the Nevada Legislature, after speaking with Elisa Cafferata, the longtime Planned Parenthood lobbyist and granddaughter of Nevada’s first female member of Congress, former Rep. Barbara Vucanovich, R-Reno.

The subject spilled over into the news recently, after Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford, D-Las Vegas, appointed an independent investigator to review sexual harassment claims against Sen. Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas.

Manendo has hired a lawyer, who said he was confident his client will be exonerated.

Manendo was also accused of sexual harassment in 2003 by an intern of former Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, R-Reno.

Then, Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, instructed the Legislative Counsel Bureau to investigate. The result was inconclusive, with not enough evidence to merit any punishment, according to reports.

Perkins recently told the Nevada Independent’s Michelle Rindels and Megan Messerly that the allegations influenced his decision remove Manendo as chairman of the Government Affairs Committee.

I recall the issue was seemingly pushed aside by a $1 billion tax war in a divisive Legislature that lasted into July.

This session, Senate Republicans have seized on the issue, calling for a Senate investigation and a removal of Manendo -- chairman of Senate Transportation -- of all committee assignments.

“For decades, allegations against Sen. Manendo have been made and have been swept under the rug by those in charge,” Minority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, said, according to Sean Whaley of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

“Enough is enough,” added Sen. Heidi Gansert, R-Reno.

Are Republicans too quick to judge?

“It is important that you go through a process that treats the accused fairly,” Cafferata said on Nevada Newsmakers.

“These types of allegations have come up many times over the years,” Cafferata said. “Ever since I have been at the Legislature, I’ve heard about this issue.”

Three factors are converging in Carson City that will lead to a competent investigation, Cafferata said.

“A couple of things have brought it to the point where it is going to get fully investigated and it is (because) more legislators are women, more lobbyists are women and women’s issues being taken more seriously,” she said.

Female lobbyists are sometimes in difficult positions, dealing with lawmakers, she said.

“If you are a lobbyist, you cannot afford to lose any votes,” Cafferata said. “You can’t afford to raise the issue.”

She added, “lobbyists are in a very difficult position.”