Ed Wood is on a mission to change state laws regarding drugged driving.

Wood has a very personal stake in the issue. His son, 33-year-old Brian Wood, was among three people killed in a Sept. 3, 2010, car crash on North Whidbey last fall. Evidence introduced at trial showed the two Oak Harbor women responsible for the collision had illegal drugs in their systems.

Wood, a Colorado resident, wasn’t happy about the sentences handed down this month to the women. But he hopes his story of loss and injustice will spur a law change in this and other states.

“It would bring some solace,” he said, if the tragedy leads to something positive.

Wood wants lawmakers to adopt a “drug per se law” to make it easier for prosecutors to convict people of driving while drugged. He said one of the reasons that the two women who caused his son’s death received lenient sentences is state law that makes it difficult for prosecutors to convict defendants of driving while under the influence of drugs.

As state law stands today, it’s not illegal for any driver, with the exception of commercial drivers, to get behind the wheel with drugs in their blood. It is illegal if they are “under the influence of or affected” by a drug, which can be difficult for cops or prosecutors to prove.

Wood spoke at length about drugged driving laws at the sentencing hearing. He said he wants Washington to join a growing list of states that have enacted “drug per se laws.” They can either be zero-tolerance laws that ban people from driving with any level of drugs in their systems. Or they can mimic drinking-and-driving laws, which set a legal limit.

“Per se laws for alcohol have been credited with reducing drunk driving over the last several decades,” he said. “But drugged driving is far more prevalent than drunk driving, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And unlike drunk driving, drugged driving incidents are increasing. Something obviously has to be done about this epidemic.”

While one of the two defendants, 21-year-old Jordyn Weichert, tested positive for heroin and methamphetamine just after the crash, the judge ruled at trial that the prosecution failed to produce evidence that she was impaired at the time of the accident. Part of the problem with the prosecutor’s case was that a trooper who’s a certified drug recognition expert wasn’t allowed, under state law, to say at trial that he thought Weichert was under the influence since he hadn’t gone through a 12-step testing regiment. He couldn’t complete the testing since she was taken away by paramedics.

As a result, the judge ruled that the jury wasn’t allowed to consider the most-serious, “DUI prong” of the vehicular homicide statute.

If the state had drug per se laws, Wood argues, the blood tests would have been enough to allow the jury to consider charges of vehicular homicide and vehicular assault by reason of driving under the influence. For Weichert, it could have meant an extra three years on top of her eight-year sentence.

On the night of the accident, Weichert was driving a Chevrolet Blazer while her friend, 23-year-old Samantha Bowling, held the steering wheel for her just prior to the crash. The Blazer crossed the centerline and crushed the Subaru that Brian Wood was driving. Wood was killed and his wife, Erin, who was next to him in the passenger seat, was seriously injured. She was seven-months pregnant at the time; Sierra Grace was born Oct. 28.

Also killed in the accident were two passengers in the Blazer, 25-year-old Jacob Quistorf and 26-year-old Francis Malloy. Bowling suffered a fractured hip. She later pleaded guilty to three counts of vehicular homicide.

Changing the laws that would govern this kind of case may be complicated. This year, state lawmakers considered and then rejected on a “drug per se” bill that would have set a legal limit to the amount of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, drivers can legally have in their systems.

Diego Vargas, a Bellevue attorney who represented Weichert, is considered an expert in DUI defense in the state. He said he would support per se drug laws if they were based on scientific evidence and are consistently applied. Both of those conditions are tall orders.

The problem with the science, Vargas said, is that studies haven’t determined at what level the various drugs cause impairment to drivers. One of the issues is that drugs — whether it’s meth, cocaine, heroin or any others — tend to affect different people differently. Vargas noted that a recent study on marijuana’s impact on driving found that people actually drive better after modest ingestion.

A way around this is to adopt a zero-tolerance law that bars people from driving if there’s any drugs in their system. Vargas said he’s in favor of a true zero-tolerance law.

“If lawmakers were really serious about it, they wouldn’t allow driving with any amount of drugs or alcohol in a person’s systems,” he said. “But the liquor and pharmaceutical companies would never let that happen.”

In another wrinkle, Vargas points out that a lot of people take prescription drugs that don’t necessarily impair their driving ability. Some people with attention deficit disorder, for example, have prescriptions for drugs containing amphetamine; the drugs make them normal, but would make others high.

Island County Prosecutor Greg Banks agreed that it’s a complicated issue. He noted that there are hundreds of mind-altering drugs that people take, both illegally and legally. He said it would be difficult for legislators to set levels for the amount of drugs that causes driving impairment.

“Our average legislator probably doesn’t know how much heroin or meth it takes to get high. There aren’t a lot of studies to help them,” he said.

In addition, Banks doubts that lawmakers would pass a zero-tolerance law because of the sheer cost.

While adopting drug per se laws may be difficult, Wood said it’s not impossible. He’s done a lot of research on the issue and found that 17 states have adopted some form of drug per se laws to deal with drugged driving. He’s not sure which approach is the best, but said that “something is better than nothing.” He urges people to write their legislators and ask them to enact drug per se laws.

“Adopting per se laws will never bring my son back,” he said. “And they will never halt all the drugged driving that we are now witnessing. But it’s the rational, responsible thing to do in any society. … It would save lives of responsible citizens. And it would be a comfort to those of us whose lives have been permanently scarred by drugged driving.”