Slashdot Mirror
Philips Develops Roadside Drug-Testing Device
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."
Can this tell the difference between intoxication and merely having used said drug in the past couple of days? While cannabis may be illegal, a DUI should not be warranted if you happen to test positive, given the long time it's present in your bloodstream.
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 I'll have to worry about a false positive for coke, meth, etc. if I take the wrong vitamin or supplement? To Hell with that.
'Land of the free' my hairy white pimple covered ass!
... 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.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If there is no way to tell if a person is intoxicated by their behavior, what exactly is the problem? Is the person really intoxicated then?
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.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Yeah.. in addition to generations of fear-mongering and politicians without the cajones to appear "soft on crime".
Just because they can walk a straight line within the sensory limits of the officer doesn't mean there isn't a 5% or 10% reduction in reaction time that can be the difference between life and death in a car.
Then again being tired at the wheel is far more dangerous. There's just no good field test for that.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
... letting the "war on drugs" police-prison-industrial complex beat us into the ground (i.e., take away all vestiges of privacy, personal choice, and/or any sense of pleasure) with its ever advancing technology? We should just end the WOD already? It ain't nobody's business what drugs/substances I use, drink, smoke or eat if if it doesn't harm anyone else. We need to declare an end to this Nixon era nightmare so we can empty out the prisons, give cops something more productive to do and increase our revenues by taxing the dopers to recoup what we can from their vices. Drug abuse is a medical problem not a PPI one. So let's treat it that way before the PPI's tax subsidized techno mavens create a total (but drug free!) police state for us to live. (End of rant)
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
But even if they are experience a 5% to 10% reduction of reaction time they are 'acceptably' able to drive. There are some people who are much better at driving than others. Why should it be illegial for them to be driving at 90% their ability when they are still way better than most?
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.
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
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.
Help fight spam
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Honestly, I don't think there is a clear reasoning at this point why marijuana is illegal.
Money. Prohibition is big business.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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 ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
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.
You mean you weren't sure whether or not you were stoned for half the tests?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
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.
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.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.