Slashdot Mirror
Terahertz Scanners See Inside Sealed Packages
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."
You know, I have to say, I've met a lot of MIT people, and they're not all the geniuses that everyone claims them to be... it's hard to get in that school, but once you're in, it's college for the most part.
They just have a weird sense of humor, but they're not all Einsteins.
They say that a second team detcted mold spores last year at the end of the article. so I gues they are on the right track
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Sorry, tobacco is more addictive than heroin, at least according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse.
Here, see for yourself.
And as for deadly, heroin doesn't even come close to tobacco.
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.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Marijuana Does Not Cause Reckless Driving
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
Teraview, a UK spinoff of Toshiba, is developing terahertz imaging technology to diagnose cancer, among other medical applications.
I don't know where you live, but here in the Houston area the police are way understaffed, and thanks to a non-fiscally minded mayor, they're cutting staff.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
While I'll admit that the chart and graph on the page seem to support your claim, drugwarfacts.org doesn't offer any source for the data in the chart (and graph). Especially considering the title of the (nine year old) NYT article, I'll have to remain doubtful of your claim that tobacco is more addictive than heroin, but I would love to see the data from NIDA that backs up your claim.
Your next claim--that heroin is less deadly than tobacco--is even worse. The link you provided lists the total number of deaths per year for heroin and tobacco. Fair enough, since they report 430,700 tobacco deaths and 16,926 deaths due to all licit and illicit drugs. But your claim is on the danger to an individual. Here's a quote from NIDA:
This was copied from NIDA's page on Heroin. Please note that the page I linked to is on NIDA's website. See for yourself.I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone dying from a fatal overdose of nicotine--and I've known a number of chain-smokers. I think the low number of deaths due to illicit drug use means our policies work.
Your final claim concerns additives to heroin: the health concerns NIDA is referring to here are for the heroin itself--the NIDA website lists the dangers posed by the additives, and they are serious. However, the fact that the additives are dangerous does not change the fact that the heroin is dangerous, too.
I'm not against the legalization of some drugs which are currently illegal, but I am against distorting the truth. Oh yeah, and my .sig is from "The Kids in the Hall;" it doesn't mean I'm a junky.
<mumbles>I don't know why I bother, some people just cannot have their minds changed.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
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.
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.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
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 answer to "What happens when they overdose?"? The same thing that would happen now when drugs are illegal, the same thing that happens to alcohol addicts now.
Also, you have been brainwashed into thinking that people that do drugs besides alcohol and tobacco are all addicts that don't have insurance, live on welfare, etc. I have a white collar job, I have health insurance, retirement fund, college educated and I smoked marijuana last night.
You would not be able to successfully tax illicit drug sales in order to defray the cost of hospital care, and even if you could, you'd be selling it for more than it could be bought on the streets.
You do realize that the DEA's budget is about the same as NASA's right? It costs you and me already between $20 to $50k a year per innmate to keep non violent drug offender. Wow, imagine if they, were, like, working instead of sitting in jail.
The second issue is the known crime caused by drug addicts. Because of the addiciton caused by stuff like heroin, addicts will do anything they can to obtain the drug. This includes theft, prostitution, or in the worst cases assault and murder for hire. In fact, a murder can occur simply because someone was attempted to get $20 for his next high. This is a public safety issue in general.
1st, drug addicts will exist wether or not drugs are legal. Addiction does not "cause" theft. I havn't heard of people prostituting themselves for a cigarette or a beer (although I'm sure it has happened, but you get my point). Also, most drug crime is directly related to the fact that the drug is illegal.
The third issue is the quality of the work force. Legalizing drugs which impair judgement would eventually mean companies could not screen individuals (although, at first drug screening would hold up, it wouldnt be long before the ACLU challenged the privacy legality of the tests). The cause would be an ineffective work force, forcing companies to go out of business. This could also cause hostilities in a work place.
Brainwashed again. I made it to work this morning. Doing alcohol on the job is prohibited by my employer and is subject to dismissal. Alcohol is legal, impairs judgement, but its legality based on the quality of the workforce is not questioned. Some companies even have parties where alcohol is served.
Drug testing is an invasion of privacy right up there with looking into one's medical records. If I were tested positive because of antibodies caused by legal drugs prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition, I would have to "prove" my innocence to a prospective employer or whatever. Thats not right.
The fourth point, is that sentences for selling to minors would be just as lax as they are now with alcohol and cigarettes. Society's view would be one of "well he's just acting more grown up" because drug usage would be considered an "adult act".
I cannot explain nor justify the sentences for specific "crimes". That is what started this discussion in the 1st place.
The fifth and final point, do we want more corporations like "big tobacco" running our lives? Would they be required to state the inevitable side effects of the usage of their product? Would they be responsible for crimes being commited by those addicted to their drug? Would they be civilly sued for not disclosing that their drug was harmful? (etc etc, you get my point). What we will have is another company "attacking our children" as some li
While I'll admit that the chart and graph on the page seem to support your claim, drugwarfacts.org doesn't offer any source for the data in the chart (and graph). Especially considering the title of the (nine year old) NYT article, I'll have to remain doubtful of your claim that tobacco is more addictive than heroin, but I would love to see the data from NIDA that backs up your claim.
...the health concerns NIDA is referring to here are for the heroin itself
A quick Google search reveals any number of links to the full-text of the article. Here's just one.
Heroin abuse is associated with serious health conditions, including fatal overdose, spontaneous abortion, collapsed veins, and infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.
As a previous poster has observed, prohibition contributes to--if not outright causes--each of these consequences.
I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone dying from a fatal overdose of nicotine--and I've known a number of chain-smokers.
What does it matter how the substance kills? That said, there is emerging evidence that exposure to tobacco smoke can induce cardiac arrest, simply by being exposed. In effect, the victims overdose.
This is not true.
However, the fact that the additives are dangerous does not change the fact that the heroin is dangerous, too.
The emerging consensus is that heroin causes no ongoing toxicity to the body, even through long-term use. Heroin may only be dangerous because we've worked so hard to make it that way.
I'm not against the legalization of some drugs which are currently illegal, but I am against distorting the truth.
As am I, which is why I take such great exception to your post.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
most of pot's addictiveness comes from its nicotine content
This is so true. Vapid, but true. Marijuana contains no nicotine and is not (physically) addictive!
It's not just proportionately that the USA has the highest number of incarcerations. In absolute terms we simply have more people in jail than any other country. Almost 2,000,000 people are locked in US jails. China with somewhere between 4 to 6 times the US's population has about 1.5 million people incarcerated.
t m
source:
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/world.h