Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Philips Develops Roadside Drug-Testing Device

Posted by timothy on from the better-for-your-privacy-citizen dept.

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."

8 of 647 comments (clear)

  1. Legalization by Delwin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Legalization by eln · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      This is a problem with interest groups in general. Most are formed with a specific goal in mind. However, they also employ people and generally give a lot of people a sense of belonging that they don't want to give up. So, once the goal they were created for is reached, they don't disband like they should. Instead, they just set new, generally more extreme goals, until they eventually degenerate into a fringe group of wackos. 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, so many of their extremist garbage ends up being discussed, and even acted on by Congress, more than most people would like.

    2. Re:Legalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But for the most part the visuals are closed eye, and only then when very very stoned and only then on certain strains. I've never had a problem smoking while driving. Friends have commented that i'm a better driver while stoned and i've done some double blind video tape tests of myself doing things stoned showing I am actually more coordinated. My doctor told me this happens with quite a few people. I'm also one of those people who is not paranoid while stoned (i was when I started... not anymore). I have no problem talking to those who know me or even cops. The way I see it is that it allows you to think in a slightly different manner and I don't think people shoudl be judged for that as "different" does not necessarily mean "impaired". For some things, it vastly improves ability.

    3. Re:Legalization by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      last time I came up on a DUI checkpoint I was completely sober, and was on my way to my brothers house for an all-nighter of Halo and booze (great combo BTW).

      Looking for some entertainment I made an obvious end-run around the checkpoint by turning into an adjacent shopping center just before the check, and back onto the road just after the check.
      I was lit up and pulled over within 30 seconds.
      I was asked "do you know why I pulled you over?" to which I responded truthfully: "I avoided the checkpoint".

      several minutes later I was released because I had nothing on my person, nothing in plain sight to give probable cause to search my vehicle, and I passed the field sobriety check by blowing a 0.02. What's scary about that number is that I had *nothing* to drink in the last 3 hours, and no booze at all that entire day... So where did the .02 come from?
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    4. Re:Legalization by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ketosis. You might be on atkins, you might be diabetic.
      http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/low-carbers-beware-the-breathalyzer/
      http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/diabetes-and-the-counterfeit-dui

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Legalization by jkiol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the police or MADD actually cared about stopping drunk driving, they would go into the bar and give people an optional breathalyzer before they get into a car and before they can be arrested. Of course the punishment for this is to go back inside the bar and order some water until your BAC goes down. But no one makes money that way.

  2. False Positives? by Banichi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do they return false positives for people who eat poppy seed cake? http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

  3. Re:Test for impairment, not specific drugs. by billcopc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem of course is that the police is not necessarily interested in a fair assessment of someone's driving habits. It will greatly reduce "income" since they will no longer be able to arrest anyone anywhere for any drug or alcohol related excuse.

    If the police system cared about the people and not the money, they'd stop trying to control crime with fines.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com