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."

17 of 647 comments (clear)

  1. Well by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Great... more things to spend tax dollars on.... by joocemann · · 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.

  3. Re:Legalization by Shakrai · · 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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Re:Legalization by Jeng · · 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.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  5. Re:Legalization by mewsenews · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the major roadblocks in legalization was no field test for driving while impaired.

    Yeah.. in addition to generations of fear-mongering and politicians without the cajones to appear "soft on crime".

  6. Re:Legalization by mcgrew · · Score: 4, 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.

  7. The Larger Issue Here Is This: Why are we by Dr_Ken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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."
  8. Re:Legalization by ElSupreme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  9. Re:Legalization by Hojima · · Score: 4, 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.

  10. Re:Legalization by Shakrai · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  11. Re:Legalization by countertrolling · · 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.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  12. Re:Legalization by Shakrai · · 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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  13. Re:Legalization by geekoid · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. Re:Legalization by aaandre · · 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.

  15. "Double blind"? by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i've done some double blind video tape tests of myself doing things stoned showing I am actually more coordinated.

    You mean you weren't sure whether or not you were stoned for half the tests?

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  16. Re:Legalization by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, 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.

  17. Re:Legalization by clone53421 · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.