Philips Develops Roadside Drug-Testing Device 647
Al writes "A handheld developed by Philips for law enforcement detects traces of cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and methamphetamine in 90 seconds. The system uses magnetic nanoparticles attached to ligands that bind to traces of these drugs. Once saliva has been placed inside the device, an electromagnet mixes the sample and the nanoparticles. Frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) — the same phenomenon that underlies fingerprint scanners and multitouch screens — is then used to measure a change to the refractive index. By immobilizing different drug molecules on different parts of a sensor surface, the analyzer is able to identify traces of each different drug. An electronic screen displays instructions and a simple color-coded readout of the results."
Legalization (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Informative)
The question is does it detect active ingredients instead of metabolites? For example cannabis can test positive even several days (or weeks) after consumption.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
We're still a long way to legalizing cannabis. The biggest problem is the misinformation that organizations like DARE throw about. Hell, some of my friends still argue with me that THC is a hallucinogen and has a biological basis for addiction.
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, some of my friends still argue with me that THC is a hallucinogen
They said no such thing. I think you imagined the whole conversation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Funny)
I've never had a problem smoking while driving. Friends have commented that i'm a better driver while stoned and i've done some double blind video tape tests of myself doing things stoned showing I am actually more coordinated
That reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago:
What's the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver? The drunk driver runs right through the stop sign without even looking. The stoned driver stops at the stop sign and waits for it to turn green.
"Double blind"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean you weren't sure whether or not you were stoned for half the tests?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You air and food addicts, get off your high horse (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm just saying, not everyone who uses a substance is addicted to it, and not every addiction is bad. The way I see it, there is a wide range of possible drug use styles, from non-use through destructive use. Even heavy daily use is not necessarily destructive. The key things to look for are, does the use interfere with other important parts of your life? Is it messing up your job, your friendships, or your family relations? Then it may be a problem. But someone who drinks two glasses of wine a night, or sm
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, this is as much flamebait as the great grandparent. Your higher power could be anything, if you're losing your job over weed or getting DUIs, you aren't exactly one to talk about fallacies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't smoke weed, never lost a job over weed, barely drink, and never drive under the influence. What would make you conclude such a thing? Is that prejudice I hear... because I couldn't possibly be criticizing the holy church of "sobriety" (different definition in AA) with honorable intentions. I must be in denial!
Your higher power can not be anything. That's bait and switch [orange-papers.org]. AA is a religious organization [orange-papers.org] (court decisions which the supreme court has refused to challenge making it the law of the lan
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dreaming is, by definition, not hallucinating. Hallucinating requires a conscious state. They do not, however, need to be visual. Seriously, "Did you just say something?" has got to be the real stoner catch phrase, to which a response in the negative will be followed by either "I could've sworn.." or else "Stop fucking with me!", depending on how much of a self-assured asshole he is. Of course, the latter response calls for intentionally fucking with them for the rest of the night.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"the
This could be used to describe a fondness for reading books, or playing baseball, or arguing with family about theology. It is so broad as to be meaningless. Although I will give you that you did state that it was "the major focus". That alon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The main issue with all 'drug tests' is the constant problem with false positives due to OTC products and supplements..
As far as field testing for being 'impaired'? It's called a line walk. If you can walk a straight line, you can drive a straight line. The "No filed test' issue is pure BS, and everyone knows it.
Bad enough that the rabid prohibition group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or NAMBLA, has lobbied the legal BAL so low that I can't legally drive after eating a piece of my mother's rum cake.. Now
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Funny)
rabid prohibition group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or NAMBLA
what
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a member of DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
This could go a long way towards treating other drugs like alcohol for driving purposes. One of the major roadblocks in legalization was no field test for driving while impaired.
The sad thing is that the way alcohol is treated makes no sense. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of accidents caused by drinking are caused by people with BACs of 0.15 or higher. Instead of paroling the roadways looking for these drivers (who are usually swerving all over the road -- how many times have you seen this with no police anywhere to be seen?) the police tend to sit outside bars and pull everybody over, looking for those who blow a hair over 0.08. These people are then arrested regardless of whether or not they show signs of actual impairment.
Then there's the loss of our civil liberties that go along with the war on drunk driving. Random police roadblocks, "implied consent" laws and the 21 drinking age all come to mind. The fact that my 19 year old brother can join the army but can't legally buy a beer is offensive the notion of free choice and liberty. I find the fact that I have to drive through a roadblock on my way home at night just because my house happens to be near a bar to be particularly insulting. We are treated as though we are guilty until proven innocent and that is not how things are supposed to work in the United States.
You also gotta love the interest groups that have sprung up around the issue. MADD has morphed over the years from an organization with a laudable enough goal (reduce drunk driving deaths) into a neo-prohibitionist organization that is waging a war on all drinking. If they had their way, booze would be taxed at a higher rate than tobbaco and every car sold in the US would have an ignition interlock system. The Founder of the organization left it sometime ago in disgust at what it has become.
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Interesting)
MADD has morphed over the years from an organization with a laudable enough goal (reduce drunk driving deaths) into a neo-prohibitionist organization that is waging a war on all drinking. If they had their way, booze would be taxed at a higher rate than tobbaco and every car sold in the US would have an ignition interlock system. The Founder of the organization left it sometime ago in disgust at what it has become.
This is a problem with interest groups in general. Most are formed with a specific goal in mind. However, they also employ people and generally give a lot of people a sense of belonging that they don't want to give up. So, once the goal they were created for is reached, they don't disband like they should. Instead, they just set new, generally more extreme goals, until they eventually degenerate into a fringe group of wackos. Unfortunately, the disproportionate political influence they gained from fighting for their earlier, more generally supported, cause is often maintained far longer than it ought to be, so many of their extremist garbage ends up being discussed, and even acted on by Congress, more than most people would like.
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the disproportionate political influence they gained from fighting for their earlier, more generally supported, cause is often maintained far longer than it ought to be
MADD's political influence is maintained because coming out against drunk driving is about the easiest thing a politician can do to demonstrate that he "gets it" and is "thinking about the children". About the only thing that's more effective than pandering to MADD is passing more laws against "sex offenders".
Roaming offtopic here, but that's another issue that has gone way out of control. It started with the laudable goal of protecting our children from the real predators of the world (there actually are some....) and has since morphed into a system that forces a 17 year old to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. WTF is wrong with that picture? Here's a novel idea: Lock up the real kiddie rapists for life and throw away the key (kinda renders all those discussions about registries a moot point, doesn't it?) and leave the poor 17 year old out of the criminal justice system.
Re:Legalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the even worse parts about the whole sex offender registry are:
1) It makes explicit what we've known for a long time... our criminal justice system has no rehabilitation element. People come out of prison just as dangerous as when they went in, if not more so.
2) It gives a false sense of security to parents. They warn their kids to stay away from the guy who GOT CAUGHT, when there's probably three other pervs in the area who never have been.
I think those registries are an affront to society in a ton of ways. I will never look at them. Instead, I teach my kids to trust their instincts about people and follow normal safety rules. I never imply that they should allow someone to hug or kiss them just because it's a relative or friend; THEY always get to decide about their comfort level with affection. And I keep an eye on them.
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Another fucked up consequence of those registers is that it reinforces the idea that strangers are the threat.
And so the concerned parents leave little suzy with oh so familiar uncle Mcbuggery while they go out to lynch anyone who's name sounds a little bit like that of someone on the register.
Strangers aren't the danger, it's friends and family who are most likely to rape your kids.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree the registries are an affront, because what it says is that we can't protect your kids from the predators, because we can't distinguish between a 15-17 year olds screwing for fun and perverts, because some judge couldn't figure out that 23 year olds shouldn't be fucking 15 year olds.
My issue with them is that we've abrogated the concept of paying your debt to society. It's my belief that when you get out of prison and off parole (if you were on it) that your civil rights should be restored and you should be treated as a productive member of society. I'm not real thrilled with the concept of a scarlet letter.
That said, I do recognize that some of these people pose a significant risk to society. To me though that begs the question of why are they getting out of prison in the first pl
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Interesting)
last time I came up on a DUI checkpoint I was completely sober, and was on my way to my brothers house for an all-nighter of Halo and booze (great combo BTW).
Looking for some entertainment I made an obvious end-run around the checkpoint by turning into an adjacent shopping center just before the check, and back onto the road just after the check.
I was lit up and pulled over within 30 seconds.
I was asked "do you know why I pulled you over?" to which I responded truthfully: "I avoided the checkpoint".
several minutes later I was released because I had nothing on my person, nothing in plain sight to give probable cause to search my vehicle, and I passed the field sobriety check by blowing a 0.02. What's scary about that number is that I had *nothing* to drink in the last 3 hours, and no booze at all that entire day... So where did the .02 come from?
-nB
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Interesting)
Ketosis. You might be on atkins, you might be diabetic.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/low-carbers-beware-the-breathalyzer/ [proteinpower.com]
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/diabetes-and-the-counterfeit-dui [avvo.com]
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, what would you assume? That it was some guy trying to save a little time? Or someone who was impaired and trying to avoid getting caught?
Well, obviously. He knew he'd get stopped. He even said why he did it:
Looking for some entertainment...
Now, as far as the point of his anecdote goes, he was wondering how he blew a .02 when he hadn't been drinking at all, and what that says about the accuracy of the magic number that we get when we blow into this device.
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Good, they should be. Why? Because *they're breaking the fucking law*.
Oh, take your self-righteousness and shove it up your ass. Ever heard the expression "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."? Everybody breaks a law everyday in this country. It is impossible to be aware of every single local/state and federal law/regulation. You think your special? Think again asshole -- if they want to get you for something they will find a way to do so.
But if you drive with a BAC over the legal limit, whatever that limit is, then you're breaking the law and you deserve to be thrown in jail. Period.
Thanks for ignoring the points I made about how such a system is completely ineffective at stopping the drunk drivers who are actually killing innocent people. Every single police officer sitting outside the community bar or manning a roadblock is one less police officer that could be patrolling the streets looking for impaired drivers who are swerving all over the place or actual criminals intent on doing something far worse than driving under the influence.
You may think it's just fine and dandy that they sit outside bars and arrest every poor slob who blows a cunt hair over 0.08 but such a system is completely counterproductive if the goal is to save lives and get the real drunks off the streets. Of course if the goal is to put a large number of people into the criminal justice system and make money for the insurance companies, well, mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the police or MADD actually cared about stopping drunk driving, they would go into the bar and give people an optional breathalyzer before they get into a car and before they can be arrested. Of course the punishment for this is to go back inside the bar and order some water until your BAC goes down. But no one makes money that way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been through quite a few roadblocks, and never actually tested. It is simply a way to plain sight search everybody on the road (this is probably worse). In fact they brag that they brag about how less than half of their infractions are drunk driving some times.
I think you've explained for the rest of us why allowing police roadblocks is a bad idea. Roadblocks are something that most people associate with dictatorships or countries under military occupation. The fact that American citizens have to be interrogated by the police to use the public roadways that we've paid for is a national disgrace.
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Informative)
So... you would rather they wait until the drivers are on the street
Yes, I would. A family member of mine was run over and murdered by a drunk driver who hadn't even gone to a bar that night. He was on his way to the gas station for a beer run with a BAC that exceeded 0.20, swerving all over the place according to witnesses. He ran her over on the fucking sidewalk and kept going on his beer run. The police tracked him down later by following the trail of broken road signs and fences. That's how badly he was driving.
On that particular night nearly three quarters of the local on duty police force was stationed at a nearby bar, manning a roadblock. Perhaps if they had been out patrolling instead of harassing people (the vast majority of which weren't intoxicated or even going to said bar) they would have caught this asshole before someone died? It's not like he was being particularly subtle. It was obvious that he had no business on the roadway. Too bad there wasn't any law enforcement around to catch him.
Go do some research on your own. The facts are all there for anybody with an open mind. Most accidents involving alcohol that result in injury or death were caused by drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or higher. The vast majority of the statistics that come from the Government are lies and distortions. My favorite one is the one that says half of all automobile accidents involve alcohol. Guess how they arrive at that number? They include passengers who had alcohol in their systems even if the drivers involved were completely sober.
Also, fuck you.
Re:Legalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Did I say that "because something is against the law does NOT mean that it should be"? No. I didn't. What I said was, if someone is driving with a BAC level over the limit they should be thrown in jail.
Really? You try to respond to me and simply reiterate the main point in your argument that I took issue with? As I said previously, this is a common logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'. The topic at hand was the legitimacy and efficacy of a .08% BAC and your just barge in with BLARG IT'S THE LAW THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR BREAKING THE LAW, which is totally worthless to the conversation. We all know that it is against the law, and we all know what the legal limit is. If you want to defend the .08% limitation, that's fine. Do that. But you add nothing to the conversation by just reiterating that it is against the law. Oh, and if you want to talk about straw men:
Or do you really believe that people should be allowed to drive with arbitrary levels of alcohol in their blood?
For real? You really think that is what I am arguing for? I am saying we ought to possibly reassess the way we determine intoxication -- why not impose a more rigorous form of performance based testing (and I am not talking about the Field Sobriety Test, we have much more sophisticated tests than that). That way, we can keep overly tired people from driving as well, since they are, after all, every bit as dangerous as drunk drivers. I am arguing that an arbitrary limit may not be the best way to go about it.
Test for impairment, not specific drugs. (Score:5, Informative)
Police could test actual impairment. Some years back I read about an impairment testing device for use in factories and heavy machinery. It's a simple LCD screen with a left-right joystick. A dot moves randomly to the left or the right on the screen, the user tries to keep it in the center using the joystick. If their reaction times are not impaired, the device unlocks the machinery. If they are, for whatever reason, like sleep deprivation, prescription medications, illegal drugs, or whatever, then the machinery remains locked. The police could test actual impairment rather than the presence of things that might or might not impair reactions. This would catch any sort of impairment which might endanger drivers and others on the road. For instance, studies have found that people with severe sleep apnea are about as likely to get in an accident as someone with a .1 BAC. If we are trying to protect people on the roads, rather than simply punish users of certain substances, this would be a fairer option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Test for impairment, not specific drugs. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Test for impairment, not specific drugs. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Test for impairment, not specific drugs. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem of course is that the police is not necessarily interested in a fair assessment of someone's driving habits. It will greatly reduce "income" since they will no longer be able to arrest anyone anywhere for any drug or alcohol related excuse.
If the police system cared about the people and not the money, they'd stop trying to control crime with fines.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if the person is just slow to begin with?
They should NOT be driving. Next question?
Re:Legalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Legalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again being tired at the wheel is far more dangerous. There's just no good field test for that.
Re: (Score:2)
(in addition to that TV test, there have been actual studies in NL finding similar results as well).
Re:Legalization (Score:4, Insightful)
If there are NO signs of imparment then there should be no testing. Bad driving should be enforced, not arbitrary values like BAC and speed limits. The thing is it is easy to quantfy BAC (not accurately but easy to get a number) and speed limits. So thoes get enforced.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, everything is more dangerous then driving at .08%
Talking to passengers while driving is worse, texting is worse, changing the music station is worse, drinking is worse, eating is worse, being tired is worse.
I mean, if .08 was so bad, we would have nothing but smashed cars on the side of the road.
How about re arrest people who are driving recklessly and put away this whole idea that a thing you do is what's bad.
Stop with the DD laws, the texting laws the cell use laws.
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Not having a field test for marijuana isn't a reason that marijuana is still illegal. Hell if that was the reason it wouldn't be a schedule 1 drug, while Cocaine which is much much worse is only a schedule 2.
Honestly, I don't think there is a clear reasoning at this point why marijuana is illegal. It just is.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I don't think there is a clear reasoning at this point why marijuana is illegal. It just is.
Marijuana is bad, Mmkay? How much clearer than that can you get?
Re:Legalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, I don't think there is a clear reasoning at this point why marijuana is illegal.
Money. Prohibition is big business.
Re:Legalization (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not. It's a big drain on business. That's why alcohol was legalized again, it brought in more money for more people and businesses then prohibiting it.
You're thinking of the "big picture", as in total cost versus total profit for our society at large. Think instead think solely in terms of those who benefit from prohibition -- everyone who makes a chemical that THC could compete with, the prison industry, and so on -- because those are the ones who keep pushing to continue the status quo. They don't give a fuck about society at large, they care about their own pockets, and for them, prohibition is big business.
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah.. in addition to generations of fear-mongering and politicians without the cajones to appear "soft on crime".
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't measure intoxication, which is why I have such a severe problem with drug testing in general. Some guy likes to smoke a joint on Friday night, for the next month he'll test positive for marijuana, even though he's never never been high at work, while another guy stoned to the gills on prescription vicodin gets a free pass just because the vicodin is legal with a prescription.
I know some ignorant people who used to be pot smokers who are now addicted to crack cocaine because of drug testing. Pot use can be determined for a month, while the cheap tests employers use for cocaine can only detect that for three days. Knowing full well that they've been bullshitted by the government about pot, they figure that Nanny Government has been lying about crack, too. So they switch from pot to crack and wind up fired anyway, because they've become addicted and are smoking the stuff daily.
I'd like some of the anti-nanny state conservatives here to answer something - why are you guys so much in favor of antidrug laws? These are the worst of nanny state laws. Why should my employer have any say in anything that doesn't affect my job performance? Why should the government have any say over what I put in my body so long as it doesn't endanger anyone else? I'm against impaired driving, as that puts me at risk, but so long as you don't drive or go bow hunting while stoned it doesn't affect anyone.
And you "pro-choice" liberals, why is it OK to remove a fetus but not OK to insert a heroin syringe? Both camps seem pretty damned hypocritical to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Some guy likes to smoke a joint on Friday night, for the next month he'll test positive for marijuana, even though he's never never been high at work
Most of the studies I've read suggest that the detection range is usually less than a month for the occasional smoker, though as with anything biological it can vary tremendously depending on your metabolism/diet/routine and other factors. It can be detected for a longer period of time in daily smokers though.
Knowing full well that they've been bullshitted by the government about pot, they figure that Nanny Government has been lying about crack, too. So they switch from pot to crack and wind up fired anyway, because they've become addicted and are smoking the stuff daily.
I don't have much sympathy for anyone who is that stupid. Unbiased information is out there -- there's no excuse in the information age for not finding it. Erowid [erowid.org] is a great resource and starting p
Re:Legalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the studies I've read suggest that the detection range is usually less than a month for the occasional smoker
That's still about, oh, 29.5 days too broad. So what if someone enjoys a joint over the weekend, or in the evening ? As long as they're not stoned at work, I couldn't care less. Why is marijuana more evil than alcohol ? Yesterday's partying was hella crazy, yet I'm perfectly capable of doing my job today because the booze has run its course and I've had plenty of time to sober up. My BAC is probably zero or very close to it, and I'm at no risk of getting in trouble for boozing 24 hours ago, so why should a pot smoker be treated any worse ?
Re:Legalization (Score:4, Informative)
Eight pints on a Friday night, drive in the morning... Don't get me started. Irresponsible is a tame word to use.
Re:Legalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Stating the obvious reasons for criminalization.
- "War on drugs" is very very profitable.
- "War on drugs" gets every parent's vote.
- Politicians are not interested in anything that will make them less electable, especially by moms and old ladies.
- Decades-long framing of the idea of illegal drug use as criminal and bad.
- Decades-long framing of the idea that if a politician changes their mind, they are/were stupid or unreliable, contrary to the fact that changing one's mind is usually a sign of evolving worldview. Politicians are terrified of "flip-flopping."
- Politicians do not serve the people who elected them but money.
- Often people who use mind altering substances have more open minds. Open minds see through the BS of political systems and oppression. It is very convenient to have a quick, easy way of condemning and removing open minds from the fabric of society and the Holy Inquisition is out of fashion.
I am sure you can add more.
Pro-choice and anti-choice battle is a great example of how politics works. We are given an issue that polarizes and divides us and focuses our energy on fighting each other and not the oppressive system that enslaves us. If you look at that issue you'll see that the reality is we can not stop women from attempting abortion in one way or another. It is not possible. This is not the real issue. A culture where money is more important than human beings, lack of support for and negative attitude towards single parents, the necessity to work endless hours and live disconnected from one's children, the monetization of human health and life, are all major contributers to the issue. Dealing with these would change the numbers but would require many, many of us to change the way we think and act, and namely to start actually caring for each other.
anti-nanny state conservatives (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like some of the anti-nanny state conservatives here to answer something - why are you guys so much in favor of antidrug laws?
I don't know what gave you this impression.
The fundamental philosophy of "anti-nanny staters" is that it's not the governments job to protect people from themselves. Your mistaken if you believe that the majority of us take drug use to be an exception to this principle.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) - the same phenomenon that underlies fingerprint scanners and multitouch screens - is the used to measure a change to the refractive index.
Perhaps the Slashdot editors should use this device prior to posting an article to the main page. The again, what do I know?
Tin Hat time! (Score:2)
And then we'll have chips that do the same thing.
Oh, where is that tin hat of mine!
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly it's more expensive to execute someone than to let them rot in jail for the rest of their life.
But after the debacle with the NY state government I've entirely given up hope. If it's OK to suspend the constitution over 'terrorism' how about we suspend it one last time over our government not acting in the interest of our country. Kill em all and let god* sort them out.
*or whatever deity you prefer. Atheists can sit smugly knowing no one else has to clean up their trash :)
If Phillips is smart, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the source code available? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well (Score:4, Insightful)
No it does not see the difference (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about just being near drug users? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the presence will cause them to get warrants to search for drugs, but there would be thresholds (like current BAC levels) that determine impairment. The legal system is already set up to handle this one (though as always there will be lobbying on both sides as to where exactly to set those lines).
Oh, my. (Score:2)
Now highway cops will have these handy-dandy devices that will also detect legal drugs but will still try to arrest you for being "influenced".
If you're not having problems driving, communicating or making rational decisions then the drug isn't harmful, some people need things like amphetamines to be rational.
Maybe this is a fair weapon against irresponsible driving, but all I can see on the surface is another tool for abuse.
False Positives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:False Positives? (Score:4, Funny)
if $suspect == WHITE_AFFLUENT
return poppyseed_muffin
else if $suspect == MINORITY or WHITE_TRASH
return beatdown_arrest
endif
More hand-held medical devices (Score:2)
This is promising. We need more and better hand-held medical devices. Medical technology tends to be bulky, and as it is downsized, it can be deployed more freely.
A friend of mine is a horse veterinarian, and she's always looking for devices that can be used in the field. Vets sometimes get new gear before human doctors do, because it can be deployed for animal use while it's still in clinical testing for humans. She already has compact X-ray gear which displays on a laptop; that was a big advance. S
No I won't spit in your dam cup... (Score:2)
With the successful campaign to free up breathalyser source code [slashdot.org] how long before this is challenged and the science behind it questioned? Before or after multiple convictions?
Can being at the party and kissing the babe with the razor blade be sufficient to get traces in your saliva?
Because we can, should we?
Waste of money (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the dogs are cheaper. It's not illegal to have traces of ANY drug in your system; being intoxicated while driving is. This neither tests for intoxication nor indicates the possession of any drugs.
This technology is useless, except for propaganda purposes.
Great... more things to spend tax dollars on.... (Score:5, Insightful)
... so our government can keep being at 'war' with us.
Drugs are a social health problem, not a criminal problem. Sadly our representatives and much of our populous lacks the maturity or the foresight to acknowledge this difference --- and thus the current moralist/criminalist approach leads to filled prisons and fines that leave us wondering why we're all such bad people.
Wake up -- curiosity and susceptibility are not bad things. Given the change in availability and removal of black markets, most drugs only impact the individual -- and for 'other crimes' that people may commit on drugs, those acts are still criminal. Example: in a meth legal world, the addict is not treated like a criminal, but if she neglects her child she can still be held responsible for that neglect.
Like I said, drugs are a health issue.
how long until we see funding requests? (Score:2)
i've been participating in the transparencycorps project [slashdot.org], and have been amused at seeing all the requests by representatives for this or that device for police departments all over the country. how long before we start seeing requests for this device too?
Its just a photo of a dog in a cap and glasses... (Score:5, Funny)
Well it was fun while it lasted (Score:4, Funny)
Poppy seed resistant? (Score:2)
As has been shown time and time again (including by the Mythbusters) eating poppy seed bread can set off a false positive. How sensitive is this thing? I.e. will it discard anything below a certain level or just flag you for the tiniest amount of opiates (I think it's opiates in the poppy seeds)?
Consequences (Score:2)
This will probably prompt some zero tolerance laws--any illegal drugs in your system when driving, and you are guilty. I expect that such a law would pass constitutional muster, but there would be challenges.
Law enforcement will want to jump immediately on this stuff. The big expense with this kind of thing is not buying the units and training the users and maintainers--the big expense is the inevitable war of legal challenges that will result. If the manufacturer will not fully expose its schematics and
Cheech and Chong (Score:3, Funny)
Cheech: Not anymore, hehehe.
Those wacky Dutch! (Score:2)
They need only to step out the front door of their office in Eindhoven to test for space cakes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coFCa7k4iyg [youtube.com]
The Larger Issue Here Is This: Why are we (Score:5, Insightful)
this is why: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090804/NEWS/90804012/Wrong-way-Taconic-crash--Driver-Schuler-was-drunk&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL [poughkeepsiejournal.com]
people don't act responsibly. your opinion about drugs and complete freedom to their access would be valid if everyone acted responsibly with drugs
but people don't act responsibly with drugs, and so they must be controlled, simply because it cuts down on pointless tragedies
you could counter that limiting people's freedoms is not a justifiable trade-off for making
freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
you have every right to express your political opinion. in a totalitarian society you don't, but the arguments for why you shouldn't express your political opinion, as expressed by totalitarian societies, are logically invalid upon examination
you do not have every right to use any drug you want. in a free and open democratic society, the pluses and minuses have been put up for debate, and it is found that those who use certian substances hurt society in myriad ways, far worse than any way laws against those
Re: (Score:2)
Tiredness Test (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I'd much rather see a test for melatonin levels than any narcotic. Driving while tired is much more common and more hence likely to cause accidents than drug use I think.
What I just don't get (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about drug-testing (not alcohol) for driving purposes that always leaves me wondering is: how the they know I'm positively high? Maybe I shared a joint a month ago with my buddies, and since THC is fat-soluble it lasts longer than any other controlled substance in your system. Maybe it doesn't last for so long in your saliva, but still there should be a threshold just like there is with alcohol ( >0.23 = your are busted, 0.23 = you can go now). How do they legally state that you are not ok to operate a motor vehicle?? In my opinion the only way to assess this would be by legalizing, and then restricting. This way it's just nuts.
I can see the headline (Score:5, Funny)
"Philips screw driver."
Re:I can see the headline (Score:4, Informative)
Excellent!
For another laugh, look at the corporate logo of the company developing this gadget with Philips
http://www.concateno.com/index.php?cPath=78_193&news_id=123 [concateno.com]
Handcuffs anyone?
Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
Three points to make.
1) First and most importantly the device's software should (must) be open source. The breathalyzer has been shown in recent years (at least in the USA) to be wildly inaccurate, make false assumptions, and contain horrible rounding errors (when multiplied by ppm is a lot). It took years and court orders to finally look at the software which was protected under the auspices of "Trade Secrets". When opened up it was found that the code looked to be written by retarded drunken squirrels.
2) One fear as already mentioned is it may only detect remains of drugs and not active drugs. Like the differance if I smoked a join before hoping into the car, or if I smoked some 4 weeks ago in my house. Along with this is detecting drugs that are derivatives of each other. So they might say detect Heroin when really I had some medically percribed morphine at some point.
3) One easy test is the scientifically proven field test as demonstrated in "Super Troopers". If any of the occupants are "like totally freaked out dude" then they are high and can be arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
I regret to inform you that Canada has NOT decriminalized the posession or use of cannibis.
The cops here may not arrest you for it, but I can assure you that it IS still illegal, and in theory you could be prosecuted and jailed for it.