(A) No person shall knowingly make, obtain, possess, or use any instrument, article, or thing the customary and primary purpose of which is for the administration or use of a dangerous drug, other than marihuana, when the instrument involved is a hypodermic or syringe, whether or not of crude or extemporized manufacture or assembly, and the instrument, article, or thing involved has been used by the offender to unlawfully administer or use a dangerous drug, other than marihuana, or to prepare a dangerous drug, other than marihuana, for unlawful administration or use.
(B)(1) This section does not apply to manufacturers, licensed health professionals authorized to prescribe drugs, pharmacists, owners of pharmacies, and other persons whose conduct was in accordance with Chapters 3719., 4715., 4723., 4729., 4730., 4731., 4741., and 4772. of the Revised Code.
(2) Division (B)(2) of section 2925.11 of the Revised Code applies with respect to a violation of this section when a person seeks or obtains medical assistance for another person who is experiencing a drug overdose, a person experiences a drug overdose and seeks medical assistance for that overdose, or a person is the subject of another person seeking or obtaining medical assistance for that overdose.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of possessing drug abuse instruments, a misdemeanor of the second degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of a drug abuse offense, a violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(D)(1) If the offender is a professionally licensed person, in addition to any other sanction imposed for a violation of this section, the court immediately shall comply with section 2925.38 of the Revised Code.
If the offender has a driver's or commercial driver's license or permit, section 2929.33 of the Revised Code applies.
(2) Any offender who received a mandatory suspension of the offender's driver's or commercial driver's license or permit under this section prior to September 13, 2016,may file a motion with the sentencing court requesting the termination of the suspension. However, an offender who pleaded guilty to or was convicted of a violation of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code or a substantially similar municipal ordinance or law of another state or the United States that arose out of the same set of circumstances as the violation for which the offender's license or permit was suspended under this section shall not file such a motion.
Upon the filing of a motion under division (D)(2) of this section, the sentencing court, in its discretion, may terminate the suspension.
The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.
Last updated January 28, 2025 at 3:34 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 114
cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State v. Chandler, 560 N.E.2d 832 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989).
State v. Chandler, 560 N.E.2d 832 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989). · cites it 10דOn April 12, 1989, appellant’s counsel moved the court for resentenc-ing, asserting that: “[s]ince Mr. Chandler was found guilty of possession [of] syringes only, the maximum penalty that should have been imposed was ninety (90) days in jail under R.”
State v. Kobi, 701 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1997). · cites it 3ד2d 832 , the court compared possession of criminal tools with the offense of possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A). That statute states: “No person shall knowingly make, obtain, possess, or use any instrument, article, or thing the customary and…”
State v. Hayes, 2019-Ohio-1629. · cites it 2ד11(A), and one count of Possession of Drug Abuse Instruments, a misdemeanor of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A). Hayes entered a plea of guilty to both counts prior to the sentencing in the case at bar.”
State v. Mateo, 565 N.E.2d 590 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 4דAppellee argues that the snort tube is a drug abuse instrument pursuant to R.C. 2925.12, and therefore he cannot be subjected to prosecution under the criminal tools statute, R.”
State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512. “331(B), a felony of the third degree, and one count of possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree.”
State v. Burnett, 755 N.E.2d 857 (Ohio 2001). “11 (except for minor misdemeanor violations), possessing drug-abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12, possessing drug paraphernalia in violation of R.”
State v. Robinson, 2018-Ohio-1797. · cites it 4ד{¶1} Following a plea of no contest, defendant-appellant Robert Robinson was convicted of one count of possessing drug-abuse instruments under R.C. 2925.12. We reverse his conviction and discharge him from further prosecution.”
State v. Griffin, 2013-Ohio-2230. · cites it 4דWe noted that R.C. 2925.12 could not apply, because it pertained only to hypodermic needles or syringes as the relevant drug instrument included in the statute.”
State v. Durham, 2013-Ohio-4764. “The indictment also included one count of possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A), which, due to Durham's previous conviction for cocaine possession, rose to a first-degree misdemeanor.”
State v. Davis, 2012-Ohio-2642. · cites it 5ד{¶1} Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Justin Davis was convicted of possessing a drug abuse instrument in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A). Because his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, we must reverse.”
State v. Ball, 593 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1991). · cites it 13דSpecifically, the appellant argues that he could only be convicted and sentenced for the offense of possessing drug abuse instruments pursuant to R.C. 2925.12 as a result of possession of the syringes.”
State v. R.S., 2022-Ohio-1108. “) 2009: possessing drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.12. 5.) 2016: resisting arrest in violation of R.”
State v. Kobi, 701 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1997). “2d 832 , the court compared possession of criminal tools with the offense of possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A). That statute states: “No person shall knowingly make, obtain, possess, or use any instrument, article, or thing the customary and…”
State v. Hayes, 2019-Ohio-1629. “11(A), and one count of Possession of Drug Abuse Instruments, a misdemeanor of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A). Hayes entered a plea of guilty to both counts prior to the sentencing in the case at bar.”
State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512. “331(B), a felony of the third degree, and one count of possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree.”
State v. Durham, 2013-Ohio-4764. “The indictment also included one count of possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A), which, due to Durham's previous conviction for cocaine possession, rose to a first-degree misdemeanor.”
State v. Davis, 2012-Ohio-2642. “{¶1} Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Justin Davis was convicted of possessing a drug abuse instrument in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A). Because his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, we must reverse.”
State v. Kobi, 701 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1997). “2d 832 , the court compared possession of criminal tools with the offense of possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A). That statute states: “No person shall knowingly make, obtain, possess, or use any instrument, article, or thing the customary and…”
State v. Chandler, 560 N.E.2d 832 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989). “On April 12, 1989, appellant’s counsel moved the court for resentenc-ing, asserting that: “[s]ince Mr. Chandler was found guilty of possession [of] syringes only, the maximum penalty that should have been imposed was ninety (90) days in jail under R.”
State v. Ball, 593 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1991). “Specifically, the appellant argues that he could only be convicted and sentenced for the offense of possessing drug abuse instruments pursuant to R.C. 2925.12 as a result of possession of the syringes.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.