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."

9 of 647 comments (clear)

  1. Stupidity or Insanity? by corebreech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Stupidity or Insanity? by KUHurdler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      <>

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

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    2. Re:Stupidity or Insanity? by corebreech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Stupidity or Insanity? by pmz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Stupidity or Insanity? by GSloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

  2. Horray... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  3. Re:Clarification by corebreech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, of course, I should have made that clearer.

    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.

  4. Re:Good by CausticWindow · · 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?

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  5. Re:All I have to say... by Eskarel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well this might be viable except that all that "cheaper" is money going to someone, usually someone in government.

    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.