UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEP ARMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

vs. 

EDWIN TURBEVILLE, 

Respondent 

BEFORE: 

JOSEPH N. INGOLIA 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Baltimore, Maryland 

APPEARANCES: 

FOR THE COAST GUARD 

LCDR Mark E. Hammond, 

PO James Gilchrist 

2401 Hawkins Point Road 

Baltimore, MD 21226 

FOR THE RESPONDENT 

Michael Lentz, Esq. And 

John Bourgeois, Esq. 

One South Street 

Suite 2600 

Baltimore, MD 21201-3201 

Docket No. 01-0385 

Case No. PA01000896 

DECISION AND ORDER 
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

The United States Coast Guard ("Coast Guard") initiated this administrative 

action to revoke Merchant Mariner's Document Number 248748509 issued to 

Respondent Edwin Turbeville. This action was brought pursuant to the legal authority 

contained in 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c) and the underlying regulations codified at 46 C.P.R. 

Parts 5 and 16. The Coast Guard issued a complaint on May 16,2001, which charged 

Respondent Turbeville with use of or addiction to dangerous drugs because he tested 

positive for Tetrahydrocannabinols or THC metabolites (i.e., marijuana metabolite) on 

March 22, 2001 during a random drug test. 

Respondent Turbeville filed an answer to the Coast Guard's complaint and 

requested a hearing. Respondent admitted all jurisdictional allegations contained in the 

complaint and denied all factual allegations in the complaint. The hearing was initially 

set for August 14, 2001. Pursuant to the Coast Guard's unopposed Motion For 

Continuance, the proceeding was continued and rescheduled for October 2, 2001. 

During a pre-hearing conference on September 25,2001, Respondent's counsel moved 

for a continuance. The hearing was rescheduled for October 30, 2001. 

The hearing convened on October 30, 2001 in Baltimore, Maryland before the 

Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia, Chief Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast 

Guard. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 

as amended and codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, and Coast Guard procedural regulations 

located at 33 C.P.R. Part 20. 

2 
LCDR Mark E. Hammond and PO James Gilchrist represented the United States 

Coast Guard. Michael Lentz, Esq. and John Bourgeois, Esq. represented Respondent 

Turbeville, who appeared at the hearing. 

A total of seven witnesses, including Respondent Turbeville, testified at this 

hearing. The Coast Gqard introduced five exhibits into evidence. The Respondent 

introduced seven exhibits into evidence. 

II. FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. Respondent Turbeville holds Merchant Mariner Document No. 248748509, 

authorizing him to serve as an Able Bodied Seaman Unlimited. (Transcript at 132-

133). 

2. Respondent Turbeville took a random urinalysis on 22 March 2001, while serving 

aboard the M/V DELAWARE BAY, while the vessel was moored at Port Newark, 

NJ. (Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 2). 

3. Respondent Turbeville provided his urine specimen to a collector during the 22 

March 2001 random urinalysis. The collector, Ms. Phyllis Cheezum ofRiverview 

Paramedical (now known as Riverview Mobile Specimen Collections), collected and 

documented the collection of Respondent's urine specimen on a Federal Drug Testing 

Custody and Control Form ("FDTCCF") pursuant to the provisions of 49 C.P.R. Part 

40. (Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 3). 

4. Respondent Turbeville's urine specimen was assigned Specimen ID Number A12964487. (Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 4). 

3 
5. The address listed in step 5 on the FDTCCF is the physical address of the collector's 

business and not the physical location of the site at which the actual specimen 

collection on 22 March 2001 took place. (Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 5). 

6. Respondent Turbeville signed the FDTCCF in the presence of the collector. (Joint 

Exhibit 1, paragraph 6). 

7. By signing the FDTCCF Respondent Turbeville certified that the urine specimen he 

provided had not been adulterated in any manner and that the specimen had been 

sealed with a tamper-evident seal in his presence. He also certified that the Specimen 

ID Number on the tamper-evident seal placed on the collected urine specimen was the 

same as the Specimen ID Number on the FDTCCF. (Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 7). 

8. Respondent Turbeville's urine specimen was properly prepared for shipment and 

shipped to the lab, Quest Diagnostics, Inc., in San Diego, California, for analysis. 

(Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 9). 

9. M. Ratliff at Quest Diagnostics, Inc. received Respondent's urine specimen on March 

23, 2001 and insured that the specimen was received intact- with no evidence of 

tampering. (Transcript at 75, 96; 10 Exhibit 2, Attachment 5, p. 2; Joint Exhibit 1, 

paragraph 1 0). 

10. Accession number S0267489220 was assigned to the Respondent's urine specimen, 

which bore Specimen ID Number A-12964487. (Joint Exhibit ],paragraph 11). 

11. Thereafter, M. Ratliff transferred the urine specimen to temporary storage. 

(Transcript at 96; 10 Exhibit 2, Attachment 5, p. 2). 

12. Michelle Biltz took Respondent's specimen from temporary storage and prepared the 

specimen for testing. (Transcript at 98; 10 Exhibit 2, Attachment 5, p. 2). 

4 
13. Michelle Biltz pipetted an aliquot from Respondent's original specimen. (Transcript 

at 98). 

14. The aliquot of Respondent's urine specimen was one in a batch of34 other aliquots 

prepared by Ms. Biltz for testing. (Transcript at 98, 102; IO Exhibit 2, Attachment 5, 

p. 1). 

15. Respondent's specimen was initially screened for the presence of dangerous drugs on 

March 23, 2001. (Transcript at 71). 

16. Trina Estoesta received the batch prepared by Ms. Biltz and transferred the batch to 

screening. (Transcript at 1 00; IO Exhibit 2, Attachment 5, p.2). 

17. An initial screening of the aliquot of Respondent's specimen using the enzyme 

hmnunoassay method produced a positive result for the presence ofTHC. 

(Transcript at 71; IO Exhibit 2, Attachment 4). 

18. The gas chromatography/mass spectrometry ("GC/MS") test confirmed the positive 

result for THC with a level of26.50 nanograms. The cut offlevel for THC 

metabolites is 15 nanograms. (Transcript at 92). 

19. M. Partido received Respondent's aliquot from the forensic room and then transferred 

the aliquot to temporary storage and later disposed of the screening aliquot. (IO 

Exhibit 2, Attachment 5, p. 4). 

20. Ms. Joan Zou, who has worked at Quest as a certifying scientist for 6 years, certified 

that the Respondent's urine specimen was positive for THC and sent the report to the 

Medical Review Officer ("MRO"). (Transcript at 77~78, 96). 

21. The MRO, Dr. Timothy McCormick, interviewed Respondent Turbeville regarding 

the results ofhis urinalysis. (Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 13). 

5 
22. During the interview, Respondent Turbeville never told the MRO that he took hemp 

products even though the MRO provided him with ample opportunity to explain the 

positive test results for THC metabolite. (Transcript at 43). 

23. During Respondent Turbeville's interview with the MRO, Respondent Turbeville 

requested a re-test of the specimen at a DOT approved laboratory ofhis choosing. 

(Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 13). 

24. Quest forwarded Respondent's urine specimen to American Medical Laboratories 

("AML"). (Transcript at 1 04). 

25. AML received, properly documented and complied with chain of custody 

requirements regarding Respondent Turbeville's urine specimen. (!oint Exhibit 1, 

paragraph 15). 

26. AML found the specimen to be positive for Cannabinoids as Carboxy-THC. (Joint 

Exhibit 1, paragraph 16). 

27. During these proceedings, Respondent claimed that the positive test result for THC is 

attributed to his use of hemp products, including hemp seeds, oils, nuts and capsules, 

while on board the M/V DELAWARE BAY. (Entire Transcript). 

28. Respondent testified that he brought on board the M/V DELAWARE BAY: 4 twelve 

ounce bottles of Galaxy Global Eatery hemp oil; 2 smaller bottles of Galaxy Global 

Eatery hemp oil; 3 twelve ounce packages of Galaxy Global Eatery hemp nuts; 2 

smaller cans of nuts; a bottle Spectrum cold pressed hemp oil capsules and hemp 

seeds. (Transcript at 210; Respondent's Exhibits B though E). 1 

1 During the hearing Respondent testified that the package of Galaxy Global Eatery hemp nuts contained 16 

ounces of hemp nuts. However, the package indicates that it contains 12 ounces of hemp nuts. 

(Respondent's Exhibit C). 

6 
29. Respondent did not store any hemp products in any refrigerator aboard the M/V 

DELAWARE BAY. (Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 19). 

30. During the hearing, Respondent did not present any witnesses who saw him ingest 

hemp products during his voyage aboard the M/V DELAWARE BAY. 

31. Respondent testified that he had a bag ofhemp nuts, hemp seeds, a bottle of hemp oil 

and one container of capsules remaining after his three-month voyage aboard the M/V 

DELAWARE BAY. (Transcript at 212; Respondent's Exhibits B-E). 

32. Respondent also testified that he ingested three. to four tablespoons of hemp oil a day. 

(Transcript at 157). 

33. Respondent testified that he ingested 18-20 hemp oil capsules daily and he ate the 

hemp nuts out of their containers. (Transcript at 158, 213). 

34. Respondent also testified that he stopped using any hemp products twenty-five days 

after his three-month voyage aboard the M/V DELAWARE BAY. (Transcript at 

216). 

35. Respondent's bottle ofhemp oil allegedly leftover from his voyage is three-quarters 

full. (Respondent's Exhibit B). 

36. There are also thirty-five hemp oil capsules allegedly remaining from Respondent's 

voyage. (Transcript at 215; Respondent's Exhibit E). 

37. Respondent submitted aliquots of the hemp seed products that he claimed to have 

ingested to Elsohly Laboratories, Inc. in Oxford, Mississippi for testing. (Joint 

Exhibit 1, paragraph 20). 

7 
38. Elsohly Laboratories, Inc. received and tested the packaged aliquots of hemp seed 

products intact. All of the packaged aliquots were found positive for THC of varying 

levels. (Joint Exhibit 1, paragraph 21). 

III. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Respondent Turbeville and the subject matter of this hearing are properly within the 

jurisdiction of the United States Coast Guard and the Administrative Law Judge in 

accordance with 46 U.S.C. §7704 (West Supp. 2001); 46 C.P.R. Parts 5 and 16 (2001); 

and 33 C.P.R. Part 20 (West 2001). 

2. At all relevant times, respondent Turbeville held Merchant Marine Document No. 

248748509, while serving as an able bodied unlimited seaman aboard the vessel M/V 

Delaware Bay from Mid-December 2000 through March 22, 2001. (Transcript at 191, 

175-176). 

3. The Respondent tested positive for THC, which creates the presumption that he is a 

drug user. 46 C.P.R. §16.350(a)(l). 

4. The Respondent has failed to rebut the presumption that he is a drug user. 

5. The charge of "DANGEROUS DRUG USE" against Respondent Turbeville is found 

PROVED by a preponderance of the reliable and credible evidence of record. 

IV. DISCUSSION 

The purpose of a suspension and revocation proceeding is to protect lives and 

property at sea against actual and potential danger. See 46 U.S.C. 7701 (West Supp. 

2000). A Coast Guard issued license or document is subject to revocation if the Coast 

Guard proves that the Respondent is a dangerous drug user by reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence. 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c). 

8 
The term "dangerous drug" means a controlled substance as defined in section 

102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970, codified in 21 U.S.C. § 

802 (also referred to as the "Controlled Substance Act" or "CSA"). 46 C.F.R. § 16.105. 

Marijuana and its metabolite (i.e., Tetrahydrocannabinols or THC) are dangerous drugs. 

See 46 C.F.R. § 16.350(a)(l); 49 C.F.R. § 40.29. Under applicable Coast Guard 

regulations, an individual is presumed to be a user of dangerous drugs when a person fails 

a chemical test for dangerous drugs. 46 C.F.R. §I6.201(b). 

In order for this presumption to arise, the Coast Guard must prove: (1) that the 

Respondent was the person who was chemically tested for dangerous drugs; (2) that the 

Respondent failed the chemical test for dangerous drugs; and (3) that the test was 

conducted in accordance with 46 C.F.R. Part 16. See ~ Appeal Decision 2603 

(HACKSTAFF); Appeal Decision 2592 (MASON); Appeal Decision 2589 (MEYER). 

Once the Coast Guard establishes a prima facie case and the presumption arises, the 

burden shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption. Id.; 33 C.F.R. § 20.703. 

The Respondent's defense must rebut the presumption of drug use by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 33 C.F.R. § 20.701; See Appeal Decision 2584 

(SHAKESPEARE). If the Respondent fails to rebut the presumption, the ALJ may find 

the charge of use of a dangerous drug proved on the basis of the presumption alone. 

Appeal Decision 2603 (HACKST AFF); Appeal Decision 2592 (MASON); Appeal 

Decision 2589 (MEYER). 

In this case, the Coast Guard has established by a preponderance or reliable and 

credible evidence that the Respondent's urine specimen tested positive for marijuana 

during a random drug test conducted on March 22, 2001. The Respondent stipulates to 

9 
certain facts surrounding the collection of his urine specimen. (Joint Exhibit 1). 

However, the Respondent argues that Quest Diagnostics, Inc. breached the chain of 

custody during the initial drug testing process and· that the test results should be deemed 

invalid. The Respondent further argues that, since the initial test conducted by Quest is 

invalid, any subsequent confirmatory test conducted by AML should be disregarded. In 

addition, the Respondent has raised an affirmative defense, arguing that his prior use of 

hemp seed products caused the positive tests for marijuana. 

A. Chain of Custody 

The Respondent does not dispute the AML confirmatory drug test results, but he 

argues that the initial test conducted by Quest is invalid because there was a break in the 

chain of custody. More specifically, he points to page 2 of Attachment 5 of the Litigation 

Package, which indicates that an aliquot was pipetted from the Respondent's original 

urine specimen by Michelle Biltz and T. Estoesta transferred the aliquot to "screening." 

(JO Exhibit 2). The Respondent argues that since there is no indication that the urine 

sample passed directly from Biltz to Estoesta there is a break in the chain of custody, 

which serves to invalidate all test results. The Respondent's argument is without merit. 

The parties in this case stipulated that the Respondent's urine sample was 

properly collected in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") 

regulations; that the Respondent signed the custody and control form certifying that the 

specimen provided had not been adulterated or tampered with; and that the specimen was 

received at Quest intact and with no evidence of tampering. (Joint Stipulation ·1; 

Findings of Fact 3-11). Mr. James Callies, Scientific Director -of Quest, testified 

regarding the laboratory's handling of the Respondent's drug sample and described the 

10 
ultimate positive result in terms of the various specific readings that proved the basis of 

the final result. Mr. Callies testified that, in processing the Respondent's sample, Quest 

followed all DOT regulations. Mr. Callies further testified about the chain of custody and 

in doing so specifically identified the laboratory's handling of the specimens when it 

passed from the collector to the lab. He also traced the route taken through the lab until 

the matter was referred to the MRO by the lab. In his testimony, Mr. Callies validly 

concluded that in this case the chain of custody had not been broken and the requirements 

of the DOT regulations had been met. (Transcript at 65-109; 10 Exhibit 2). 

The Coast Guard also presented the testimony of Dr. Timothy McCormick, the 

MRO in this case. Dr. McCormick verified that the chain of custody in this case 

remained unbroken in satisfaction of the requirements of the DOT regulations. 

(Transcript at 31-64; 10 Exhibit 2). 

In support of his contention that lab technicians at Quest broke the chain of 

custody, the Respondent offered the testimony of Dr. Robert Simon, who testified as an 

expert witness. Dr. Simon testified that the chain of custody was broken because there is 

no direct transfer of the aliquot of Respondent's urine specimen from Michele Biltz toT. 

Estoesta. (See Transcript at 25T-271; 1.0. Exhibit 2, attachment 5, p. 2). Dr. Simon 

further testified that the handwriting after "Refer to" on the Specimen Transmittal Sheet 

is unreadable. !d. 

A careful review of the Quest Diagnostics, Inc. Litigation Package demonstrates 

that Dr. Simon's testimony does not support the Respondents' allegation of a breach in 

the chain of custody for two reasons. First, an examination of the Load Lister Chain of 

Custody page in attachment 5 of the Litigation Package shows that Trina Estoesta 

11 
received the aliquot ofRespondent's urine specimen from temporary storage and released 

the aliquot for screening from the forensic room where M. Partido ultimately received the 

aliquot. @.). Second, Dr. Simon mistakenly assumes that the handwriting after "Refer 

to" on the Specimen Transmittal Sheet represents the signature of a custodial person. 

(Transcript at 259;!0 Exhibit 2). Rather, the handwriting refers to the Load Lister Chain 

of Custody page, from where the handling and transfer of the batch containing an aliquot 

of Respondent's urine specimen may be traced throughout the Quest Litigation Package. 

(Transcript at 1 03). 

In view of the above, it is clear that there is no validity to the Respondent's 

argument that the chain of custody was broken by Quest lab personnel, which renders the 

subsequent positive test result for marijuana reported by AML invalid. The procedures 

followed by Quest not only satisfied the requirements of the DOT regulations, but there is 

no evidence in this record that the positive test result was in any way called into question. 

While Dr. Simon's opinion testimony as to what would be the proper maintenance of the 

chain of custody may or may not be a better process than the one employed by Quest, his 

opinion is immaterial in ultimately deciding this case. (Transcript at 269-271). The 

chain of custody used by Quest complies with the requirements of 49 C.F .R. § 

40.29(a)(2) and is certainly adequate to warrant a holding that the chain of custody was 

not broken in this case? 

2 Under 49 C.F.R. § 40.29(a)(2): 

Laboratories shall use chain of custody procedures to maintain control and accountability of 

specimens from receipt through completion of testing, reporting of results during storage, and 

continuing until final disposition of specimens. The date and purpose shall be documented on 

an appropriate chain of custody form each time a specimen is handled or transferred and 

every individual in the chain shall be identified. Accordingly, authorized technicians shall be 

responsible for each urine specimen or aliquot in their possession and shall sign and complete 

chain of custody fmms for those specimens or aliquots as they are received. 

12 
B. Use of Hemp Oil 

The Respondent argues that his use of hemp products caused the positive test 

result for marijuana during the random urinalysis. · In support of his argument, the 

Respondent relies on the expert testimony of Dr. Simon, some tests conducted by El 

Sohly Laboratories, Inc., and the testimony of a close personal friend, Ms. Donna Lee 

Stupski. 

During the hearing, Dr. Simon testified, on direct examination, concerning El 

Sohly's laboratory results following analysis of the hemp products that Respondent 

Turbeville claimed to have consumed. (Transcript at 277-280). On cross-examination, 

Dr. Simon also testified about the "four decades of controversy" concerning the use of 

hemp oil products. (Transcript at 282-312). The gist of Dr. Simon's testimony is that he 

agrees with Dr. Mahoud A. El Sohly, whose laboratory analyzed the hemp products and 

Dr. Simon believes that hemp oil could produce a positive result in a drug test for 

marijuana. (Transcript at 290). However, Dr. Simon's testimony fell short of averring 

that the Respondent's claimed use of hemp oil products produced a positive test result in 

this case. (Transcript at 287-293, 295-301, 307-311). Dr. Simon's testimony was 

equivocal and inconclusive. Succinctly stated, Dr. Simon testified that in order to 

determine whether Respondent's claimed usage would produce a positive test result for 

marijuana, one must know Respondent's weight, metabolism, whether THC levels have 

built in his fat tissues, as well as other factors. !d. Dr. Simon did not possess any of the 

Although the term "appropriate chain of custody form"· is neither defined by statute or regulation, there is 

no evidence that the chain of custody forms, including the Specimen Transmittal Sheet and Load Lister 

Chain of Custody form, used by Quest Diagnostics, Inc.- a Department of Health and Human Services 

certified dtug testing laboratmy - was inappropriate or otherwise not in compliance with DOT regulations. 

13 
information necessary to make a reliable and credible determination as to whether 

Respondent's use ofhemp products produced the positive drug test result in this case. 

Thus, Dr. Simon's expert testimony and conclusions of themselves are of little 

weight in this proceeding. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phannaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 

579, 597 (1993). During the hearing, Dr. Simon presented no study, test, or other reliable 

and probative evidence to support his contentions. As the 9th Circuit Court noted on 

remand in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, an expert's bald, unadorned, 

assertions that the methodology they employed comports with standard scientific 

procedures is not enough. 43 F.3d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1995), certiorari denied 516 U.S. 

869 (1995). The "party offering [the expert testimony] must come forward with other 

objective, verifiable evidence that the testimony is based on "scientifically valid 

principles." !d. at 1318. 

During the hearing, Ms. Stupski testified about Respondent Turbeville's use of 

hemp products. According to Ms. Stupski, she lives with the Respondent and served him 

hemp oil products in salads, pastas, cereal and used hemp nuts in muffins. (Transcript at 

314, 316-321, 323-328). Ms. Stupski also testified about her own personal use of hemp 

products and stated that she has never tested positive for drugs during employer directed 

tests. (Transcript at 328). Her testimony establishes that the Respondent used hemp 

products but nothing more. She has no personal knowledge about Respondent 

Turbeville's possible use of hemp products during his three-month voyage aboard the 

M/V DELAWARE BAY. (Transcript at 312-331). 

Mr. Turbeville testified that he first began using hemp products in the early part 

of the year 2000 after reading several articles and books in which nutritionists claimed 

14 
that hemp is a good source of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. (Transcript at 141-142). 

According to his testimony, he read Eating Well for Optimal Health and 8 Weeks to 

Optimal Health- both by Dr. Andrew Weil. (Transcript at 204). He stated that he 

brought the following hemp products on board the M/V DELAWARE BAY: four 12-

ounce bottles of Galaxy Global Eatery hemp oil; 2 smaller bottles of Galaxy Global 

Eatery hemp oil; three 12-ounce packages of Galaxy Global Eatery nuts; 2 smaller cans 

of nuts; a bottle Spectrum cold pressed hemp oil capsules; and hemp seeds. (Transcript 

at 201; Respondent's Exhibits B-E). Mr. Turbeville further testified that while on board 

the M/V DELAWARE BAY, he ingested three to four tablespoons of hemp oil a day, 

took approximatelyl8-20 hemp oil capsules daily, and ate the hemp nuts straight out of 

its container. (Transcript at 157-158, 213). Moreover, Respondent Turbeville testified 

that after the completion of his three-month voyage on the M/V DELAWARE BAY he 

had a bag of hemp nuts, hemp seeds, a bottle of hemp oil and one container of capsules 

remaining. (Transcript at 212; Respondent's Exhibits B-E). 

The Respondent's self-serving testimony is not credible. Ifhe ingested 18-20 

hemp oil capsules daily, as he testified, he should not have had any hemp oil capsules 

remaining from the three-month voyage on board the M/V DELAWARE BAY. 

Similarly, if he ingested three to four tablespoons of hemp oil a day- since two 

tablespoons equal one ounce - the Respondent should have finished all six bottles of 

hemp oil within the first two weeks of the voyage. In this case, the bottle of hemp oil 

allegedly remaining from the voyage is three quarters full. (Respondent's Exhibit E). 

In addition to his own testimony other facts of record cast doubt on the 

Respondent's credibility. First of all, it is almost inconceivable that the Respondent who 

15 
is obviously an intelligent, observant person, would advise the MRO of the various items 

that he took, such as, vitamins, garlic, ginseng, gingko boloba, kava kava, Nyquil, 

aciodolphilicious, milk, St. John's Wort, Contact and Sudafed, and the Respondent would 

then fail to mention his use ofhemp products. This is especially true given the fact that 

he has read literature on hemp products and allegedly brought hemp products on board 

the vessel during his three-month voyage. Second, the Respondent presented no 

witnesses during the hearing to corroborate that he brought and used hemp products 

while aboard the M/V DELAWARE BAY. 

Finally, there are aspects of the Respondent's testimony that, at best, are 

misleading and inaccurate. He testified he did not know that hemp oil contained THC. 

(Transcript at 199, 211). However, the consumer infonnation label on the bottle of cold 

pressed hemp oil capsules, which he claimed to have read, specifically lists THC as a 

main ingredient. (Respondent's Exhibit E). Further, on page 96 of Dr. Weil's book, 

Eating Well for Optimal Health, which the Respondent claims he read,· the author 

specifically states that hemp is illegal. 

V. CONCLUSION 

A careful review of the facts and circumstances in this case demonstrates that the 

Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c) and its underlying regulations by testing 

positive for marijuana metabolites following a random drug test conducted on March 22, 

2001. The Respondent has not only failed to rebut the presumption of drug use in this 

case, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he was a drug user within the 

meaning of 46 U.S.C. 7704(c). 

WHEREFORE, 

16 
VI. ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the charge of user of dangerous drugs against 

Edwin Turbeville is P~OVED, and it is further, 

ORDERED that the Merchant Mariner's License, No. 248748509, issued to 

respondent is hereby REVOKED. Respondent is ordered to immediately surrender his 

Merchant Mariner 's License to the Investigating Officers at Activities in Baltimore, 

Maryland. It is hereby further, 

ORDERED that the services of the Decision on the respondent's counsel will 

serve as notice to the respondent of his right to appeal, the procedure which is set forth in 

33 C.P.R. 20.1001-20.1003. 

,/ ... ------

( 

'\~.vi/~ ·~ Dated this cE'... day of ~..JP-Jvtctl002 

Baltimore, MD . 

Copy: 

Activities Baltimore, Attn: Investigations Department 

Michael Lentz, Esq., Counsel for Respondent 

John Bourgeois, Esq., Counsel for Respondent 

17