Commentary
Inhalant Abuse Revisited
As we go to press, the Minnesota Supreme Court just ruled that the chemical 1,1-difluoroethane
(DFE), commonly sold in aerosol computer-cleaning products, is not a
“hazardous substance” under state law, and therefore cannot lead to a driving-whileintoxicated
(DWI) conviction. The decision overturned a Minnesota woman’s gross misdemeanor
6 Spray November 2017
SPRAYTechnology & Marketing
Cynthia Hundley
Publisher
chundley@spraytm.com
Ava Caridad
Editorial Director
acaridad@spraytm.com
Lisa Kintish
Assistant Editor
lkintish@spraytm.com
Montfort A. Johnsen
Technical Editor
montyjohnsen@att.net
Susan Carver
Vice President, Administration
scarver@spraytm.com
Doug Bacile
National Sales Manager
dbacile@spraytm.com
Donald Farrell
Production
production@spraytm.com
Miguel Bravo
Graphic Artist
Joy Cunningham
Reader Service Coordinator
readerservice@spraytm.com
Circulation
circulation@spraytm.com
Volume 27, No. 11 November, 2017
Industry Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part may be reprinted without written permission
from the Publisher.
Spray Technology & Marketing
(ISSN No.1055-2340) is published monthly
by Industry Publications, Inc.
Correspondence for editorial, advertising and
circulation to:
140 Littleton Road, Suite 320, Parsippany, NJ 07054
Phone: 973-331-9545 • Fax: 973-331-9547
Subscription inquiries: circulation@spraytm.com
Internet: spraytm.com, twitter.com/SprayTechnology
Periodical postage paid at Parsippany, NJ
and at additional mailing office.
POSTMASTER:
Send address changes to
Spray Technology & Marketing,
140 Littleton Road, Suite 320, Parsippany, NJ 07054
Subscription rates:
U.S. 1-year $60.00;
Canada & Mexico 1-year $70.00.
Airmail Rates to foreign countries: $130.00/yr.
Single copies of current issues: $12.00.
Directory Issue (Buyers Guide) $27.00
(includes shipping).
Missing issues:
Claims for missing issues must be made
within three months of the date of the issue.
Printed in the U.S.A.
Industry Publications, Inc. also publishes
Indoor Comfort Marketing
The opinions expressed in this publication are not intended
to be, nor should they be interpreted
as, a replacement for
professional, legal advice.
Editorial Director
DWI conviction.
After three “huffing” incidents in 2014 and 2015, this particular driver was found unconscious
in her car and charged with driving while intoxicated and for “operating a motor vehicle
under a hazardous substance.”
The driver filed a motion to dismiss that charge because, she claimed in part, the state
lacked evidence that she was under the influence of a “hazardous substance.” The Supreme
Court ruled that she was right, as DFE is not legally a hazardous substance that can lead to a
DWI conviction under Minnesota Statute 169A.03. The judge on the case acknowledged that
the ruling means that drivers “dangerously intoxicated” by the chemical will no longer be held
criminally liable.
In 2012, the Minnesota Legislature made a brief attempt to modify statutes in a way that
might have prevented this outcome by simply deleting the word “hazardous” as a modifier of
the word “substance” in Minnesota Statute 169A.03. That would therefore have made it a
crime to knowingly operate a motor vehicle “under the influence of a substance that affects
the nervous system, brain, or muscles…”
The bill got several committee hearings in the House, but it made no headway in the Senate.
However, according to MinnesotaLawyer.com, there is a chance a new version of that bill
might re-emerge in 2018 with the state’s DWI Task Force working on similar legislation for the
coming session.
Back in 2015, SPRAY reported that the Montana Supreme Court had ruled that a person
can be charged with driving under the influence (DUI) for huffing aerosol propellants. As I
once learned at an Alliance for Consumer Education (ACE) meeting concerning its Inhalant
Abuse Prevention Program, legislation that would make inhalant abuse illegal is a positive
move because it ceases to trivialize huffing and sends a message to consumers that abusing an
aerosol product could land them some serious jail time. In addition to Montana, the states of
Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Wyoming (and possibly others) also have inhalant
abuse listed as a DUI in their law books. However, many states, such as Minnesota, do not.
Even if a state has made huffing a crime, it can sometimes be tricky to prove. In most DUI
cases, the police require a breath or blood test to supply scientific evidence of drugs or alcohol
in a person’s system. Evidence of drug use remains in a person’s system for hours after a drug
is ingested, while the evidence of inhalant abuse leaves the body relatively quickly, so police
may not have scientific evidence to confirm that huffing occurred. Instead, the evidence is
often based upon the testimony of a passenger and/or the fact that aerosol cans were found in
the vehicle—something a defense lawyer may be able to discount at trial.
Still, having inhalant abuse incur legal consequences is a good step toward curbing huffing;
let’s hope that more states make the move toward criminalizing inhalant abuse. Equating
aerosols with criminal behavior in the minds of the public isn’t the issue, saving lives is.