Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Science Technology

Terahertz Scanners See Inside Sealed Packages 647

Posted by michael from the naughty-bits dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Terahertz Scanners See Inside Sealed Packages More

Terahertz Scanners See Inside Sealed Packages

Comments Filter:

  • All I have to say... (Score:5, Funny)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:16PM (#7330168) Homepage
    Bad scientist, bad, bad scientist! Go cure cancer or something useful!

    • It IS being developed to diagnose cancer (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:22PM (#7331022)
      Teraview, a UK spinoff of Toshiba, is developing terahertz imaging technology to diagnose cancer [teraview.co.uk], among other medical applications.

  • Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:16PM (#7330169) Journal
    As stupid as the war on drugs is, attempting to gain the upper hand through technology is even stupider.

    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)

      by KUHurdler ( 584689 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:21PM (#7330248) Homepage
      <<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?>>

      yes... because we all know that no one underage ever gets cigarettes or alcohol. That method works like a charm.
      • This is true.

        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.
        • Absolutely there are. They are called the mafia. They smuggle cigarettes & booze so it can be sold tax free.

      • Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:29PM (#7330359) Journal
        Are you serious? Are you actually going to use cigarettes as an example?

        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)

          by pmz ( 462998 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:45PM (#7330556) Homepage
          Says a lot about our commitment to keeping the truly dangerous drugs away from kids, doesn't it?

          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.

          • I have the very distinct impression that you are trolling based on your first sentence, "The government doesn't care about children, it (only) cares about power." PLEASE! Do you know any people in the federal or state government? The great majority of them are very lethargic and only care about the benefits they are and will continue receiving. A very few people at the top care about power, which is why they are there (just like any corporation or other large group of individuals). There are thousands of pe

      • Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Angst Badger ( 8636 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:59PM (#7331421)
        yes... because we all know that no one underage ever gets cigarettes or alcohol. That method works like a charm.

        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.
    • Great post - I wish I had mod points for you, but it looks like you're already at the cap anyway.
    • The unfortunate side effect of legalizing drugs is that we will be in effect giving up on the communities -- and they do exist -- that have managed to resist the drug epidemic of the last several decades.

      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)

        by smcavoy ( 114157 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:29PM (#7330351)
        What communities are "Drug free" (other than those that are completly cut off from the outside world)?

        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)

          by KDan ( 90353 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:33PM (#7330415) Homepage
          Try since before we even started thinking. We've been eating random stuff that fell into our hands since we had hands, I would imagine. As soon as the brain was developped enough to be able to remember that eating X makes you feel like Y, where Y was some pleasurable state, we started "doing drugs".

          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
        • While I don't pretend to speak for the parent, let me attempt this one...

          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
      • it is impossible to separate the problems of drugs and race in America.

        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.

    • 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

    • Just because it was tested to look for drugs doesn't make it a stupid venture, the end of the article mentions how a second team used the same technology to look for bacterial spores. This technology has almost limitless possibilities other than detecting drugs.

      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
      • First off legalizing drugs wont make it so kids don't get drugs, look at alcohol.

        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)

      by Elvisisdead ( 450946 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:29PM (#7330353) Homepage Journal
      One of the best responses ever to this topic was penned by Senator Jim Inhoffe (R - OK). A constituent sent him a post card with no name, but a return address on it that said, "Legalize drugs." He had a staffer go down to the Senate gift shop and buy a postcard. He simply wrote "No." on it, signed it, and had it sent to the return address.

      • Re:Stupidity or Insanity? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GSloop ( 165220 ) <networkguru@sloo ... minus physicist> on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:13PM (#7330900) Homepage
        In other news...

        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

    • 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)

      by pmz ( 462998 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:39PM (#7330480) Homepage
      attempting to gain the upper hand through technology is even stupider.

      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.
    • Drug policy is not based solely on what's best for the kids, but what's best for the community. BTW, it's the job of the government to protect the people, and one way they do this is through making drugs illegal.

      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
      • From the civil rights aspect, sure, let people get all the drugs they want... it's their choice, it's their life.. right? Well, what happens when they overdose? Leave them in the streets because they dont have health insurance? Or do we hospitalize them... give them medicine... rehab them... ??? With who's money.. this would costs tens of thousands of dollars per person every time they're found in the street? With my money? I think not!

        This is ludicrous. How will the legality of the drug change the answe
    • The reason they want to keep pot illegal is that nobody owns a patent on it and it does not serve anyone's power interests to have it legal.

      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,
    • The difference is that alcohol consumed in moderation isn't really permanently harmful. The effects are temporary, and once the alcohol is out of your body, things are okay. Alcohol is not the same as the illegal drugs we're talking about here. If alcohol is used responsibly, meaning you don't drink and drive, don't drink too much at one time, and you consume it in enough moderation to not become an alcoholic, it's not harmful. And the vast majority of people, I'd bet, consume alcohol responsibly.

      When we c
      • For example, look at ecstasy. There's countless tales of someone trying it once and then dying from it.

        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
    • When do we learn the lesson of alcohol prohibition?

      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
  • Like any self respecting dealer would ship product through the USPS.

  • Privacy (Score:3)

    by YanceyAI ( 192279 ) * <IAMYANCEY@yahoo.com> on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:17PM (#7330182)
    The ability to check the contents of a suspect envelope without violating the correspondence rights has been long sought after...Since ink is generally transparent to terahertz waves the privacy of the correspondence is not violated while the identification of concealed drugs is possible.

    Well, what about undergarments and a host of other things I could imagine me not wanting government employees to be peeping at?

    • Well, what about undergarments and a host of other things I could imagine me not wanting government employees to be peeping at?

      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. What I want is a scanner that tells me which squares to scratch on my lotto ticket.
  • ... because you know that every drug dealer makes his/her shipments for $0.37 through the United States Postal Service, saving thousands and thousands of dollars a year on trunk repair and gasoline charges ...

    • 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)

    by Polly_was_a_cracker ( 718522 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:17PM (#7330187) Homepage
    Someone figures out how to reflect these waves to give off false or misleading information... And since the intent seems to be to keep peoples rights intact, you cant just open the package. This will only last as a viable anti drug solution until three MIT stoners get bored.
    • The inner package holds the contraband; the outer package contains something to completly absorb and/or redirect the T-waves, and to broadcast a predetermined T-wave form designed to make the contents of the package innocuous looking to even the most paranoid security guard. The real question is would this be a DMCA violation?
    • I think the more likely way to kill this program is to overload it with false positives as opposed to finding a way to stealth contents.

      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.

  • Could it possibly do bad things to disks being mailed? Not that anyone uses floppies anymore ...

    Ok I admit it - I'm very worried about not getting my next shipment of E coming in the mail from Tokyo ;-)

  • I love it when they develop new technologies and say that this will be for used drug enforcement first. That makes everyone feel safe. No one likes drugs. But don't you wonder what other spectrum signatures they already have researched? Is it safe on humans? What did you have for lunch this morning?

  • 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: You can put your WEED in it!
  • ...from getting to or from Darl McBride, Chris Sontag, Blake Stowell, or SCO in general.

  • And... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MImeKillEr ( 445828 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:21PM (#7330243) Homepage Journal
    what about people with prescriptions such as Ritalin or Adderol?

    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.

    • Does everyone expect patients to carry their prescriptions (or their prescription bottles) with them at all times?

      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.

    • Each chemical has it's own absorption spectrum. I'm sure Ritalin shows up differently, just as aspirin gives a different reading from MDMA or Methamphetamine. And, considering that Adderall is amphetamine, it would seem to pick that up pretty easily, although I would imagine that the extra carbon might give a slightly different reading.

      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]

  • The researchers are now working with companies to develop a mail screening system that could suit use in post offices and airports.

    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.

    ...Man walks through Airport security checkpoint
    I'm sorry sir, you're going to have to step aside.
    > Why?
    When you walked through
  • As if there isn't a problem with the signal-to-noise around here.
  • Though this is good news for the drug war, I wonder if the technology is also able to detect the difference between fertilizer and explosives? It would be great if we had a scanner that could quickly and safely determine if someone is carrying explosives.

  • airport screeners and postal workers are getting high for free from now on.

    I feel safer already. Thank you War on Drugs(tm).

  • What about biological powders? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by forii ( 49445 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:24PM (#7330277)
    I wonder how this system would work on detecting a complex biological powder, such as Anthrax spores.

  • But what about... (Score:3, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:26PM (#7330306) Homepage Journal
    The OPO is made from a nonlinear crystal (MgO:LiNbO3) that is pumped by a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser.

    ...the effects of the Q-switched Nd: YAG laser on ultrascopic beta-molecular SCOTRON orbitals? Have they thought about that?

  • The scheme works by spectral fingerprinting -- illuminating a target envelope with tunable terahertz radiation and analyzing the absorption spectra of the resulting image. The results are cross-referenced with a database of spectra to check for the chemicals of interest.

    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)

    by Undaar ( 210056 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:27PM (#7330333) Homepage
    "At the heart of the Japanese system is a compact and tunable optical parametric oscillator (OPO) that emits terahertz waves. The OPO is made from a nonlinear crystal (MgO:LiNbO3) that is pumped by a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser. It emits terahertz radiation that is tunable between 1 and 2.5 THz.

    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?
  • Woa this is important. This is the first steps toward Star Drek like medical scanning. If you can scan for drugs then in future you can certainly scan for more complex bio substances. If the scanning is non destructive to cell structure then it will be a quantum leap in medical imaging, diagnostics and drug therapy monitoring. Good for the Japanese techs! I am sure they are aware of the implications of this tech. On the flip side it will be invaluable tech for sensing hidden harmful radio actives not just d
  • ...that slashdotters will put their drugs inside their tinfoil hats?! Nothing can pentrate those things!
  • When using your Q switched Nd:YAG laser at the campgrounds, always practice safety.
    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)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) * on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:39PM (#7330477) Journal
    More of my tax dollars spent on projects designed to help my government go on 'fishing expiditions' to see whether or not I need to be jailed. I truly don't understand why the youth of this nation is so untrusting of government. After all, the true purpose of all governments is to vet society for undesirables, yes?

    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)

    by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:50PM (#7330614) Homepage
    While the libertarian side of me would like to leave it up to individuals to make their own decisions on drugs, the impact isn't limited to the individuals who use the drugs and market influences aren't correcting the problems. Drug abuse -- and yes I am focusing on abuse -- leads to a whole host of social and mental health problems.

    (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)

      by CausticWindow ( 632215 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:49PM (#7331307)

      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)

    by sbma44 ( 694130 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:45PM (#7331265)
    very impressive, until you consider that the two example substances quoted in the article are nearly identical from a chemical standpoint. MDMA = methylene dioxy methamphetamine. You just add a little methylene branch and stick an oxygen in the carbon ring and you've gone from speed to X.

    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:

    Atoms and molecules have only certain distinct (discrete) amounts of energy (energy levels). Relatively small amount of energy are involved in rotation of molecules, and those measurements are done with far infrared and microwave spectrometry. More energy in involved in vibrations between atoms or groups of atoms (infrared). Still more energy is involved in changes of the electronic structure (visible, ultraviolet, X-ray) and nuclear structure (gamma ray).

    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)

    by BillsPetMonkey ( 654200 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:45PM (#7331266)
    I can count the number of Japanese people I know who enjoy the occassional reefer on the fingers of one foot.

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close