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."
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?
I wonder how this system would work on detecting a complex biological powder, such as Anthrax spores.
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-
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.
"Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
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
Carpe Diem
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.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
> Well, obviously we don't have any statistics to back up that statement yet, Do we? But I would assume that rate would greatly increase if drugs were cheaper and more easily accessible.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
I don't even see anything in the article about this being implemented in the US. I'm sure the Japanese would like to have something like this to stop some of the flow of Opiates from China. Most of which are brought in by "mules." And if it is used in the US...so what? Don't try importing a coupla kilos of cocaine. The easiest way to not be bothered by this technology is not to traffic in drugs. Pretty simple eh?
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
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.. 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! Because of society's general ideal of helping those in need, we will never let some drug overdose "victim" (or, no longer a victim, actually, so we'll say subject) lay in the street dying. This is where the problem is. 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.
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.
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.
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 drown up" because drug usage would be considered an "adult act".
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 liberals would say, and therefore they must be stopped.
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 come to illegal drugs, they are generally more addictive and have greater effects. For example, look at ecstasy. There's countless tales of someone trying it once and then dying from it. Methamphetamine is extremely dangerous, and so is the method of producing it. These are the kinds of drugs that you don't want legalized. And then you have stuff like herion and cocaine, too.
Do you really want this kind of stuff legalized so that anyone in the general public can get it? There are good reasons why these substances are either illegal or tightly controlled by the FDA. And it just isn't hallucinogenic drugs that are controlled substances. The FDA tightly regulates quite a long list of substances that extend far beyond the common illegal drugs.
I know, there's also the people who just want marijuana legalized and say that it's not harmful. While most teens don't actually use marijuana, I'd bet it's still the most common drug used among them. I can say I know quite a few who do smoke it quite often. It's addictive, just like any other drug. It causes a short buzz, but doesn't last that long, so many teens say it's harmless. The fact is, though, that using marijuana often can cause serious problems. One of these is depression. I wonder if the use of marijuana among teens is a factor in the relatively high suicide rate among teens. I don't know of any studies to say this, but it's plausible. Oh, and THC, the "active ingredient" in marijuana stays in the body for several days, and for heavy users, several weeks. It doesn't exit nearly as quickly as alcohol does.
Even marijuana is dangerous enough that it should be regulated.
If we legalize drugs, kids will find ways to get them, just like they can easily get cigarettes and alcohol.
Cigarettes, however, might be even more insidious than alcohol. They don't have the hallucinogenic effect, but nicotine is an addictive drug. They are quite dangerous and the serious health problems associated with smoking are proven and well documented. And yet, I bet most Slashdotters would defend their legality for one reason or another.
The point is that it's not clear cut what drugs should be banned and what shouldn't be. All of them, including alcohol and tobacco. are harmful. But we have to draw the line somewhere. Obviously people will complain about where the line is drawn, and it's somewhat arbitrary, but would things be better if we drew that line somewhere else and legalized worse drugs? Would it be better if we didn't draw the line at all and legalized even the worst of drugs?
You left out that it is carefully managed by the US Government in order to make it last forever, so that we can keep putting people in prison, employing people by the thousands; law enforcement, corrections... And let's not forget all the people we employ when we build those prisons - and all the money we can skim off the project to buy new houses and recreational vehicles for our nation's political figures. Ah yes, the American dream, I can smell it now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The thought they put into that letter was... I want to express my anti-war on drugs opinion, but I don't want to paint a target on my forehead!
I think it was very well thought out.