Terahertz Scanners See Inside Sealed Packages 647
opticsorg writes "Japanese scientists have demonstrated a system that detects the presence of illicit drugs that are concealed within an envelope. Tests to date have shown that the imaging system can successfully detect and identify a range of substances including ecstasy (MDMA) and methamphetamine. The researchers are now working with companies to develop a mail screening system that could suit use in post offices and airports."
All I have to say... (Score:5, Funny)
It IS being developed to diagnose cancer (Score:4, Informative)
Re:All I have to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it is we're going to get decriminalization which is worse because the only way to get it will still be through the criminal scum bags which currently sell it(rather than the corporate scum bags who could sell it if it were legal). Because of this, drugs will continue to fund crime and do all of the horrible things they do now, except that all of the people who are currently massively anti-drugs(read the people making money off the war on drugs) will be able to say, look, we tried it your way and it didn't work", then we'll be back to the same old garbage.
Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, thanks to the innumerable advances in creating genetically-engineered plants, we will soon see the day where the characteristics of interest in plants such as cannabis, coca, psilocybin, and opium are capable of being integrated within such ordinary plants as grass, seaweed, ferns, etc. So even if we are able to use technology to prevent drugs from coming into this country from the outside, the obvious solution for organized crime will be to make it so that the drugs can be more easily manufactured from within.
We've already seen this with methamphetimines. By working to reduce the supply and thereby increase the cost of the more traditional drugs, the market responds with a drug like meth, that is easy and cheap to produce domestically. Look at the consequences of the meth epidemic in America. It's a total disaster.
Changing the technology isn't the answer. Changing the policy is. Legalize drugs now.
Who would you rather see selling drugs? Law-abiding citizens in a legalized environment who won't sell to kids? Or criminals in a black-market environment who will?
That's the question nobody on the prohibition side seems to be able to answer. They admit that they will never be able to rid the world of illegal drugs, yet cannot come to grips with this simple question. If our drug policy is based on what is best for the children, then why haven't we legalized already? Why not start letting communities actually control these controlled substances for a change? When do we learn the lesson of alcohol prohibition? When do we recognize that there is no constitutional basis for the continuation of this goddamn policy?
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:4, Insightful)
yes... because we all know that no one underage ever gets cigarettes or alcohol. That method works like a charm.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, there are no gangs of people smuggling alcohol and cigarettes around the country and killing people, at least to my knowledge.
Less murder is always nice.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Absolutely there are. They are called the mafia. They smuggle cigarettes & booze so it can be sold tax free.
History lesson: when did they start doing this on a large scale? hint: Al Capone.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Solution: lower the taxes. Maybe that would pay for the billions of dollars less of law enforcement needed?
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would the drug-driving victim rate suddenly increase if drugs were legalized? People do (and always will) drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol, drug legalization isn't going to significantly impact that number one way or the other.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
People who would only use these drugs once legalized are already using legalized drugs like alcohol, would you at least agree with that?
And given that alcohol is more intoxicating [drugwarfacts.org] than heroin, cocaine or marijuana, wouldn't we actually see an improvement in the incidence of traffic accidents?
Think about it. Marijuana is very interesting in this case... numerous studies have been performed and which demonstrate that the impairment experienced is minimal compared to alcohol; indeed, some studies even
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Daniel
Marijuana Does Not Cause Reckless Driving (Score:5, Informative)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:04:40 -0700
Subject: Marijuana Does Not Cause Reckless Driving
Pubdate: Fri, 26 Sep 2003
Source: DrugSense Weekly
Section: Feature Article
Website: http://www.drugsense.org/current.htm
Author: Mitch Earleywine, Ph.D.
Note: Mitch Earleywine, Ph.D., is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California and author of "Understanding Marijuana" (Oxford University Press, 2002).
MARIJUANA DOES NOT CAUSE RECKLESS DRIVING
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and certain Wisconsin legislators have launched a new crusade against "drugged driving," with a heavy emphasis on marijuana. This crusade is largely based on scientific misinformation, and it could lead to the enactment of bad laws.
ONDCP has several slick television commercials on the subject. One shows dramatic auto accidents and two crash test dummies passing a joint while a serious voice says, "In a recent study, one in three reckless drivers tested positive for marijuana." Note the careful phrasing. The idea is to make viewers think that marijuana caused the reckless driving, without really saying that it did.
Why would ONDCP be so coy? The answer lies in the actual data regarding marijuana's effects on driving,
I study the effects of drugs and teach classes in the science of illicit substances, so I know this field. The plain fact is that marijuana does not cause reckless driving. Large studies of accidents show that drivers who test positive for marijuana (and ONLY marijuana -- i.e., people who haven't also been drinking or taking other intoxicating drugs) cause fewer crashes than people who haven't had any drugs at all.
That's right, people "high" on marijuana cause fewer crashes than those who are completely sober. The findings seemed impossible to explain. It was a puzzle that made no sense.
A bright and talented researcher in the Netherlands named Robbe recently solved that puzzle. He got experienced marijuana users stoned and had them drive around the streets of Holland. But these guys were no dummies. They drove slower, increased the distance between their cars and the cars in front of them, and never tried to pass other cars. Folks who smoked a placebo (a non-intoxicating substance made to look and smell like marijuana) drove as they usually did. Alcohol, alone or in combination with marijuana, wrecked driving completely.
Robbe's results helped explain the accident studies. People who used marijuana and only marijuana were compensating for the drug's effects by driving more carefully. Nobody should drive high, but we can all take a lesson from these people who did: slow down, leave space between your car and the next, and don't try to pass. Unlike alcohol, which makes people behave recklessly, marijuana users tend to be aware that they are impaired and compensate with some success.
But what about the ONDCP's claim that one in three reckless drivers tested positive for marijuana?
It's not quite a lie, but it's deliberately misleading. The Drug Czar's no dummy. He wants to scare people, and he knows the complete facts won't do it. Instead he throws out scary but incomplete and misleading statistics - -- and hopes people won't question them. Yes, one in three reckless drivers tested positive for marijuana in a urine screen, but we don't know how many of them had alcohol, antihistamines, cocaine, or any number of other drugs in their systems.
Legislators need to ask for the complete facts behind the scare stories before they start passing new laws based on misinformation.
There are cheaper, easier ways to get impaired drivers off the road. Roadside sobriety tests are reliable, inexpensive, and valid indicators of impaired driving. Law-enforcement officers can learn to administer these tests quickly and easily. Unlike expensive blood tests, which can only identify a few drugs, roadside sobriety tests can detect any kind of drug im
Re:Marijuana Does Not Cause Reckless Driving (Score:3, Funny)
>
> Just like you shouldn't drink while drunk.
Proofreading while drunk is also not recommended.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Perhaps the penalties for drunk driving are too lax? Freedom stops when other people are hurt, and the penalties of abusing freedom should be high enough to discourage it. Whether alcohol is legal or not is irrelevant, here.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:5, Insightful)
The most deadly and addictive recreational drug there is, and we only just stopped selling the stuff through vending machines!
Says a lot about our commitment to keeping the truly dangerous drugs away from kids, doesn't it?
The same applies for alcohol. We don't really enforce these laws. Compare the sentence an adult gets for selling weed to a kid with the slap-on-the-wrist a clerk at the 7-11 gets for failing to ID for an alcohol purchase, despite the enormous disparity in harm between these substances.
If you're really serious about preventing underage drug use--including the deadliest and most addictive recreational drugs, alcohol and tobacco--you'll legalize the rest of the drugs, put them all on the same shelf, and make the penalties for procuring any of these drugs for the underage very severe.
Or, you can continue pretending that what we're doing now is working.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:5, Insightful)
The government doesn't care about children, it cares about power. The only reason tobbacco, alchohol, coffee, and chocolate aren't controlled substances and illegal is that they were already too large in the economy and backed by people big enough to push the government around.
One huge positive aspect of legalization is equitable treatment. Right now, the legislation is extremely bigoted in favor of one group of people and totally against another group for only political reasons. In the USA, this should have people up in arms.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:5, Informative)
Here, see for yourself [drugwarfacts.org].
And as for deadly, heroin doesn't even come close to tobacco [drugwarfacts.org].
In fact, most of the time when heroin kills, it isn't really the heroin itself, but the fact that it is illegal. This happens because the drug is adulterated, or because the correct dosage is unknown. Or because of the use of some other drug--usually alcohol--at the same time, an event that could be prevented under legalization through labelling.
BTW, this is why alcohol killed during prohibition.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Informative)
While I'll admit that the chart and graph on the page seem to
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Informative)
A quick Google search reveals any number of links to the full-text of the article. Here's just one. [marijuananews.com]
Heroin abuse is asso
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead we need to tell kids that while for various reasons we don't recommend pot
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Pharmaceutically pure (ie not cut with crap) Heroin actually does very little damage to the body and is nowhere near as addictive as Nicotine.
Most of the problems associated with Heroin use are due to it's illegality pushing up the price by a ridiculous amount and dealers cutting it with nasty stuff.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
a) drug dealers sellig to anyone(regardless of age)
b) licensed professionals selling to people of over 21(and making a shit ton of money from it)
which option would you prefer? I would choose b
Re:Clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
Alcohol is the only drug you can be addicted to that can kill you when you try to quit.
More people die from alcohol overdose than do from any other recreational drug, even though alcohol manufacturing is legal and regulated and thus produced without adulteration.
Alcohol is more intoxicating than heroin, cocaine or marijuana, and hence, causes more death indirectly through accidents and violence.
And then of course there are the long-term health consequences, which kill more people than any other drug out there save tobacco.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your cyncism -- or perhaps naivete -- is amazing.
This isn't a good comparison for the simple reason that no one is really trying to prevent kids from getting access to tobacco and alcohol, and the penalties for doing so are very, very light. If the laws regarding sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors were enforced with anything like the vigor applied to less dangerous illegal drugs, I am confident that the trade would drop off very sharply. If the average apathetic convenience store clerk or unscrupulous convenience store owner knew that one violation would lead to total forfeiture of all personal assets and 30 years to life -- as it can with possession of marijuana with intent to sell in some jurisdictions -- then you could bet your bottom dollar those clerks would check every ID and not sell a pack of cigarettes with a wink and a nod.
Frankly, I think it's worth doing and worth far more emphasis than minor problems like illegal drug abuse, which kill fewer people in a century than legal alcohol and tobacco kill in a month.
Of course, that would only make sense if the government and the conservative anti-drug factions were really interested in public health and not using their phony drug war (like their phony terrorism war) to expand the role of state terror in minimizing dissent and maximizing profit.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because legalization brings everything out into the open for people to deal with it without having to hide in dark alleys. It encourages honesty and realistic thinking regarding these substances. It is the right solution, but so many people are too crippled by fear and bigotry to really do anything about it.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Anyway, it is impossible to separate the problems of drugs and race in America. Since we cannot talk about the second honestly, we do not have a shot at the first.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Several decades? People having been doing drugs for a shit load longer than decades... try 100s if not 1000s of years!
I don't see how idiotic drug policy is inseprable from race... please enlighten us-
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:4, Interesting)
And how do you define drugs anyway! As the dude himself put it:
"If you're against biochemical assistance where do you draw the line? Nicotine? Alcohol? Penicillin? Vitamins? Conventional sacremental substance?" - Timothy Leary (The Politics of Ecstacy)
Daniel
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not so much that drugs have a direct connection with race, more like a roundabout one. Drugs, violence and crime rates are all much higher in the economically poor sections of this country. Because the poor are typically minorities (black, hispanic and immigrants in general), drugs and race are commonly linked together. I don't believe there's been enough data on white/asian poor to show whether or not it's a race issue (I'm s
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Mainly due to socialist policies that keep certain racial groups trapped in untenable situations. The greatest gift of government-based charity to the people is stagnation in areas where there are too few jobs, the rents are too high, and the only outlets are drugs and crime.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Insightful)
If our drug policy is based on what is best for the children
Unfortunately this is not the case, and never has been. Moreover, it doesn't apply to drug policy alone, but about to every policy there is out there.
Policies are usually made for the benefit of issuer.
Now before you flame me: yes, I am referring to our regular democracy here. Democracy though is neither perfect, nor for that matter just or nice. It simply gives people choices. (You don't like that policy ? Vote for someone else next time, and
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2, Insightful)
And for your point about selling to kids which is way off topic to this post
Who would you rather see selling drugs? Law-abiding citizens in a legalized environment who won't sell to kids? Or criminals in a black-market environment who will?
First
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
When I was in high school, it was easier to get pot than beer. Way easier. Why? The people selling pot aren't asking for proof of age.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Senator Jim Inhoffe issued a press release today.
Why should we legalize drugs when we can *kill* more than a quarter of a million citicizens every year with good old tobacco. We don't need to stinkin' drugs.
---
How many folks do you know that smoke some weed and beat the girlfriend/wife?
How many folks die from lung cancer from smoking weed?
---
Drugs are legalised. We've just picked a couple of the worst drugs imaginable to legalize. Tobacco and Alcohol are bad drugs. Frankly, I think pot and cocaine are bad too. But to have the jekyl and hyde approach of Tobacco and Alcohol are good, but these others are devil spawn is simply crazy.
Senator Jim Inhoffe ought to have his head checked if he actually believes in this dichotomy.
Cheers,
Greg
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Right now, I can walk into a drug store and buy a wide variety of products - cold medicines, pain killers, etc... - and be reasonbly sure that they're not going to kill me. The FDA does a pretty good job of keeping harmful stuff from getting onto the shelf.
If we "legalize" drugs, who is going to keep harmful side effects in check? Is it just another section in the store - the "this might kill you or make you hallucinate" ailse? What's to keep nefarious individuals from sticking some cocaine in a prett
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Especially if they can't scan every letter. The trivial work around is to mail letters with no return address from a random postal dropbox knowing that only some fraction of them will be intercepted. Given the price markup for illegal drugs, the losses are probably tolerable. Legalizing drugs would collapse the high mark-up, making both the scanning system and the way around it moot.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Interesting)
Like a previous poster said, alcohol and cigarettes are a perfect example of legalized drugs. And as you replied, it's not a complete comparison because of the penalties enforced.
From the civil rights aspect, sure, let people get all the drugs they want... it's their choice, it's their life.. ri
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Informative)
This is ludicrous. How will the legality of the drug change the answe
They want you to take THEIR drugs (Score:2)
They would much, much rather you take THEIR mind-altering drugs instead -- anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, wakeup drugs, sleeping drugs. These drugs enable them to keep you in line and productive, in addition to the nice, patent-pending profit margins they provide the drug industry.
We've got a good start on it -- kids these days hit the ritalin in elementary school,
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Interesting)
When we c
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:3, Insightful)
WRONG. Sorry to yell, but this is a frustratingly persistent myth.
Ecstasy, or MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine), is an SSRI, like Prozac. An antidepressant. Where Prozac raises your mood by blocking your brain from re-absorbing the seratonin that's already in your system (and thus making your cheerful), Ecstasy takes it a step further and triggers your brain to flush its entire seratonin stores
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
That's a double edged sword.
While I agree that our current drug policy isn't working, and is doomed to never work, you can't possibly say that our "regulated" drug policies are working either. Alcohol is the single most abused drug in the United States. Tobacco is pretty far behind -- probably further than a lot of "prescription" drugs (which are increasingly being abused as well). If we're going to legalize drugs, then we need to fix the system first. T
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
I'm afraid you're a victim of propaganda.
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:2)
Despite all the evidence that's been amassed that demonstrates beyond doubt that alcohol prohibition worsened the problems associated with alcohol abuse, you would have us continue this failed policy for the rest of the drugs.
You would have us continue to arrest and incarcerate millions, and kill millions more, simply to satisfy your notion of propriety with respect to drug use, even though it then violates m
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? Nope! (Score:2)
Lets compare alchohol and weed here for a moment.
Drink to much alchohol... Die
Smoke to much weed....... Fall Asleep
Alchohol is much more inhibiting than weed(at any level), so the argument cant be made on those grounds alone to ban weed.
Why not legalize and control weed? You could tax the fuck out of it and people would still buy it. There would be less fights/murder becuase people wouldn't have to go through such shady s
Re:Stupidity or Insanity? Nope! (Score:2)
Smoke cigarettes regularly: become hopelessly addicted
Smoke joints regularly: stop when you want
Ciggies are much more addictive than weed (though weed is very mildly addictive, but the withdrawal simptoms for weed are very minor and only last for a couple of days or so, and after smoking truly VAST amounts of weed regularly for a long time).
Daniel
Drug Dealers Aren't stupid (Score:2, Funny)
Privacy (Score:3)
Well, what about undergarments and a host of other things I could imagine me not wanting government employees to be peeping at?
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
You realize that this system does not -show- in any visual manner what is inside the envelope?
You don't have a 3d-image, rather a spectrum.. which is basically a measure of the absorption of different colors of light. That spectrum is unique for different -substances-, and with a database of the spectra for different narcotics, you can identify them.
There's quite a difference in
Forget the drugs (Score:2)
Re:Privacy (Score:2)
Is it that hard to imagine that someone might send me a romantic gift? Panties aside, is it too hard to imagine that there are things other than ink that might deserve privacy, that do not include illicit items?
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you have the ability to determine what the contents are, what's to stop some zelous person from expanding the "hit" list to include whatever moral crucade that person is on now?
We'll only use this xray vision to look through your house to see if you're growing pot. We wouldn't use it to view your private behavior and use the things we found out to blackmail you.
Evidence gathered on you doesn't have to appear in court to get you jailed/imprisoned.
I can gather loose ends
Re:Privacy-"Fly" fishing. (Score:2)
Makes sense ... (Score:2, Funny)
Drug shipments through the mail (Score:2)
Actually, shipping small amounts of valuable things (illegal drugs and diamonds come to mind) through domestic post is pretty foolproof.
As long as your package doesn't leak white powder and start an anthrax scare, it's very likely to get to its destination.
Not long until (Score:4, Funny)
The old "package within a package" trick (Score:2)
Re:Not long until (Score:2)
Say you're one of these drug dealers that uses standard ground mail. All you need to do is figure out how to consistently generate false positives and then send get you and your associates to send out hundreds of flase positives.
The cost and time sink into opening all the false positives is guarunteed to kill it.
Radiation? (Score:2)
Ok I admit it - I'm very worried about not getting my next shipment of E coming in the mail from Tokyo ;-)
Ahh so we start with drugs first. (Score:2, Interesting)
One wonders (Score:2)
if with more and better abilities to actually catch every little minor drug offense, it's only going to inadvertantly give momentum to the movement to legalize some or all of the "illegal" drugs.
Right now, it's relatively easy, I think, to stay under the radar for most casual users, based on what I've read of other's experiences. Something like this could actually be a good thing if it exposed just how much drug trafficing actually goes on, especially between average, upstanding citizens. It might not be
lead lined envelopes? (Score:2)
Re:lead lined envelopes? (Score:2)
I think hemp clothes would be more effective for this.
No fair! This would stop all mail.... (Score:2)
And... (Score:3, Insightful)
These are essentially medical meth. Does everyone expect patients to carry their prescriptions (or their prescription bottles) with them at all times? No one I know with ADHD carries their full script bottles - just a couple of pills in a case.
1. Picture yourself having ADHD, a script for Ritalin, a couple of pills in a pillcase in your luggage.
2.Picture yourself being pulled from the plane by the Feds for having prescription drugs.
3. ??
4. Profit.
Re:And... (Score:2)
In 1970s Arizona, it was the law that prescription meds had to be carried in the prescription bottle. I remember watching a news report about that law, and how many people were surprised to discover they are breaking the law by carrying their prescription meds in a carry case.
I don't know if Arizona changed that law or not.
Re:And... (Score:2)
If you have a valid prescription, there shouldn't be a problem. If your pills look like legitimate pills (i.e. no mitsubishi logos, diamonds, butterflies, or sketchy gel [ecstasydata.org]
Re:And... (Score:2)
Not sure, but the point I was attempting to make was thus:
They stop you. You don't have your prescription handy. They throw you in jail for having YOUR prescription meth in your luggage.
Unfortunately, I see this happening.
Implimentations (Score:2)
First of all, I'd never thought the the US Postal Service might be one of the most egregious trafficers in illicit drugs. But now that I think about it, it's sort of funny.
I an can also see us walking through crack scanners at the airport.
I'm sorry sir, you're going to have to step aside.
> Why?
When you walked through
A slashdot article on recreational drugs? (Score:2)
Many Applications (Score:2)
In other news, Japanese scientists, ... (Score:2)
I feel safer already. Thank you War on Drugs(tm).
What about biological powders? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about biological powders? (Score:2, Informative)
But what about... (Score:3, Funny)
Creativity (Score:2)
So meth absorbs terahertz... who knew.
I'm sorry officer. I didn't know meth was illegal. You see, there's a terahertz signal emitted from the city that interferes with my wireless internet. So I filled this warehouse with drugs to blo
Someone messed up... (Score:3, Funny)
Terahertz waves of several different frequencies are scanned over the envelope and the transmitted radiation is picked up by a pyroelectric bolometer and analyzed by a computer."
Someone seems to have messed up and posted a garbled version of the page. Can someone please post the English version?
Medical Implications of this tech? (Score:2)
Don't they know... (Score:2)
Smokey the Bear says... (Score:2)
Surround your laser with rocks to keep the fire from spreading. Be sure when
you're done with your Q switched Nd:YAG laser to put it out with a bucket of water and make
sure it has stopped smoking before you leave the area.
Remember what Smokey the Bear says. Only you can prevent your Q switched Nd:YAG laser from starting a forest fire.
Horray... (Score:5, Insightful)
We already put more people in jail than any other country on Earth, proportionately; this apparently isn't enough for some people. When your government starts hunting for reasons to jail you, you know it's gone too far. I once read a very interesting thought on why something like this is done. The author expressed the idea that since governments cannot control totally law-abiding persons (as in moral laws), it must create enough sufficiently complex laws such that no person can possibly go through life without breaking one.
Ask a lawyer how many laws they've broken by lunchtime, if they wanted to get really technical, and I think you'll find the results extremely interesting.
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
(Besides: sober or intoxicated, heavy drug users are seldom fun to be around. They're @ssholes or buddy-buddy scheming @ssholes.)
While marijuana is a fairly mild drug and it may be OK to legalize it. That said, just because one drug might be a candidate for legalization does not mean that all are. There are some nasty ones out there and a scanning device that can find them is something I very much welcome.
Who knows; maybe if the supply dries up (ha!), people will vote for drug reform and allow a moderate response instead of the current all-or-nothing one?
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
just because one drug might be a candidate for legalization does not mean that all are
Actually, it's the other way around. Just because a few drugs are potentially harmful to society, why ban hundreds of totally unrelated substances?
Most people think "illicit drugs are bad", when in fact "illicit drugs" is just a list undemocraticly compiled by the govnerment from seemingly random rules.
Here are some "drugs" that you may or may not have heard about; psilocybine, dmt, ibogaine, mescaline, salvinorin, muscimol. Can you explain to me why these drugs should be illegal? Do you think the government can explain this?
Ooo! mdma AND methamphetamine!? (Score:4, Informative)
If I remember my chem 101 correctly, the reason this tech works is because different types of chemical bonds are susceptible to different frequencies of radiation, depending on their strength, which depends on the type of bond, types of atoms involved and their surrounding atomic environment. You shoot a bunch of wavelengths at a molecule and some will be absorbed, and in varying ratios, producing a relatively unique signature. Congratulations, you've just reinvented spectrography.
From dyerlabs.com/chemistry:
Terahertz may be a good candidate from a privacy standpoint, but it's in between the not-so-useful microwave and okay-for-identifying-things infrared. So basically this is just a crippled, privacy-compliant form of IR spectrography, and they've discovered that the amphetamine-based molecules can be identified with it. This doesn't mean that other organics can be properly identified by it.
Frankly, this seems kind of lame.
Japan and drugs (Score:3, Informative)
Some Japanese like the music, the clothes, the attitude but they don't do the blunts.
A few years ago in a place in northern Tokyo (Omiya), a Japanese friend left a bag of white powder - it was actually flour (don't ask) - in a karaoke place with his rucksack by mistake. We paid a left and found 20 riot police waiting for us outside. 4 hours later and a chat with the head honcho and we all had a (rather nervous) joke and went home. Every year there's a westerner visiting from getting stopped and thrown in jail in Japan. The juryless legal system is a weak defence in most cases. Anxious not to be perceived as unjust, the Japanese legal system looks hard at these "drug mule" defence but it rarely washes with the Japanese police.
It doesn't surprise me that the Japanese developed such a device, although I'm a little surprised they bothered, as drugs is not a *pressing* problem in Japan right now.
In fact, the War on Drugs is no longer the demonized "war" anymore. The War on Terrorism is it's replacement.
Re:Can it detect BOX CUTTERS? (Score:2)
Now that we can't have nail clippers on planes, what makes you think we're really any safer? At best, we won't have to worry about sitting on fingernail clippings....
Re:hmm (Score:2)
1) I believe the terahertz waves are screwed up by metal.
2) Time to start sending little foil origami cranes when you pay your bills. Or does anyone have a site that has an origami 'bird' *cough*?
Re:Acid detection? (Score:2)
Actually it won't, at least not with this system in its current form. The article says "the detection limit of the system is estimated at around 3 mg/cm^2". LSD doses are on the level of tens of micrograms [streetdrugs.org].
Re:Great invention... (Score:3, Insightful)
Moron. The illegality of most drugs is based on the three R's: (example given is for pot)
Re:Drugs are bad, MmmmKay (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, teachers and schoolhouse builders didn't figure out a way to turn the whole dope thing into a big pork barrel for lawmakers, did they? Police and jailhouse builders did. If they're so smart, why the hell don't they find themselves in positions of power? EVER?
"Yet, if their child fell from the straight and narrow, would they want them imprisoned and have their lives r