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."
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.
...that we can ill-afford. I have a much better idea. Why not simply jail everyone from the get-go to save everyone time?
They should open the code and hardware specs to reduce the understandable suspicion we have of black box judicial devices.
THL phish sticks
Requesting the source code worked in one breathalyzer case.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
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.
Do they return false positives for people who eat poppy seed cake? http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp
There has been some news here in the Netherlands about it and no it can't see whether you are under the influence or have used it in the last 24 hours or even days before depending on the drug. Most drug effect wear off after sleep and this machine won't know the difference. In the Netherlands this is such a big problem that drug prevention units like Trimbos are advising against its use as it will create more problems than solve. But maybe it works better in countries that prosecute users anyway.
I knew a guy in college who could smell weed from miles away. No matter where you were, if you broke out a joint, he would magically show up within minutes. Hiring guys like that has to be cheaper than these devices.
... 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.
Police could test actual impairment. Some years back I read about an impairment testing device for use in factories and heavy machinery. It's a simple LCD screen with a left-right joystick. A dot moves randomly to the left or the right on the screen, the user tries to keep it in the center using the joystick. If their reaction times are not impaired, the device unlocks the machinery. If they are, for whatever reason, like sleep deprivation, prescription medications, illegal drugs, or whatever, then the machinery remains locked. The police could test actual impairment rather than the presence of things that might or might not impair reactions. This would catch any sort of impairment which might endanger drivers and others on the road. For instance, studies have found that people with severe sleep apnea are about as likely to get in an accident as someone with a .1 BAC. If we are trying to protect people on the roads, rather than simply punish users of certain substances, this would be a fairer option.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Its just a photo of a dog in a baseball cap and sunglasses, if you totally think he looks like he could drive a truck, you failed the test.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
So much for making out with crack whores.
Hope is the currency of fools
State trooper: Do you have any illicit substance on you?
Cheech: Not anymore, hehehe.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
... 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."
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."
The thing about drug-testing (not alcohol) for driving purposes that always leaves me wondering is: how the they know I'm positively high? Maybe I shared a joint a month ago with my buddies, and since THC is fat-soluble it lasts longer than any other controlled substance in your system. Maybe it doesn't last for so long in your saliva, but still there should be a threshold just like there is with alcohol ( >0.23 = your are busted, 0.23 = you can go now). How do they legally state that you are not ok to operate a motor vehicle?? In my opinion the only way to assess this would be by legalizing, and then restricting. This way it's just nuts.
When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
"Philips screw driver."
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090804/NEWS/90804012/Wrong-way-Taconic-crash--Driver-Schuler-was-drunk&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
people don't act responsibly. your opinion about drugs and complete freedom to their access would be valid if everyone acted responsibly with drugs
but people don't act responsibly with drugs, and so they must be controlled, simply because it cuts down on pointless tragedies
you could counter that limiting people's freedoms is not a justifiable trade-off for making the world a safer place. and i agree with you, in general. but on a case-by-case basis, there are certain freedoms which aren't essential freedoms at all. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of political opinion, etc: these are essential freedoms for the living of a complete life. but freedom to take drugs? not essential, and therefore completely valid for limitation and control
you could also counter that the tragedy i linked to wasn't prevented by drug laws. but i don't think the war on drugs will ever be won, and i don't think they will prevent every tragedy. they will just decimate the number of pointless tragedies we would see if access to certain drugs was unfettered. drug control is like taking the trash out every thursday at your house: a maintenance function of civilization, not a holy crusade that will ever achieve any victory. so to criticize the war on drugs in that fashion is to not understand the whole point of it in the first place. there is no war on drugs, really, bad description. there is just taking the trash out every week. and that never ends
and i also think marijuana should be completely legal, but do i want someone stoned driving? do YOU want someone stoned driving?
so give your law enforcement personnel the tools to combat this behavior, and get off your holier-than-thou rant that assumes ridiculous notions about human behavior. your ridiculous notion: that we all act responsibly with drug use
as a matter of unchanging ironclad fact of human nature, there will always be people who use drugs irresponsibly, like get behind the wheel stoned or drunk, and such people need to be monitored, controlled, and punished
do you honestly believe there is any other way?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Three points to make.
1) First and most importantly the device's software should (must) be open source. The breathalyzer has been shown in recent years (at least in the USA) to be wildly inaccurate, make false assumptions, and contain horrible rounding errors (when multiplied by ppm is a lot). It took years and court orders to finally look at the software which was protected under the auspices of "Trade Secrets". When opened up it was found that the code looked to be written by retarded drunken squirrels.
2) One fear as already mentioned is it may only detect remains of drugs and not active drugs. Like the differance if I smoked a join before hoping into the car, or if I smoked some 4 weeks ago in my house. Along with this is detecting drugs that are derivatives of each other. So they might say detect Heroin when really I had some medically percribed morphine at some point.
3) One easy test is the scientifically proven field test as demonstrated in "Super Troopers". If any of the occupants are "like totally freaked out dude" then they are high and can be arrested.
You mean you weren't sure whether or not you were stoned for half the tests?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I'm just saying, not everyone who uses a substance is addicted to it, and not every addiction is bad. The way I see it, there is a wide range of possible drug use styles, from non-use through destructive use. Even heavy daily use is not necessarily destructive. The key things to look for are, does the use interfere with other important parts of your life? Is it messing up your job, your friendships, or your family relations? Then it may be a problem. But someone who drinks two glasses of wine a night, or smokes a joint a day, or plays a few hours of video games a day; but still has friends, holds down a job, and has meaningful relations: this person may be an addict but they aren't causing themselves or others any trouble, so their addictive use is not a problem.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
you have every right to express your political opinion. in a totalitarian society you don't, but the arguments for why you shouldn't express your political opinion, as expressed by totalitarian societies, are logically invalid upon examination
you do not have every right to use any drug you want. in a free and open democratic society, the pluses and minuses have been put up for debate, and it is found that those who use certian substances hurt society in myriad ways, far worse than any way laws against those drugs could hurt society. the reasons put forth for why you shouldn't use certain drugs are logically valid upon examination
you have to understand that every freedom, actual and theoretical, exists in tension with other people's freedoms. for example: freedom of expression. in most cases you should have it. but should you be free to shout fire in a crowded theatre? of course not, because you put other people's freedoms, namely, the right to live, in jeopardy. see? there is a natural logical reason to limit your freedom of expression, no fascist dystopian government need apply
there will ALWAYS be a limit on your freedoms, in EVERY society, real and theoretical. what you have to do is stop looking at every limit on your freedom as some sort of march of fascism. its intellectually dishonest of you. some limitations on your freedom are perfectly valid and completely logical and completely unlike your unfounded fears of some mythical march of fascism
in the minds of intellectual simpletons, the difference between an unfree society and an free society is the difference between george orwell and complete anarchy: ridiculous simplistic extremes
in REALITY, the difference between a free and unfree society is a CONTINUUM of RELATIVE limitations and guarantees on freedom, in which there will ALWAYS be some limitations that will ALWAYS exist out of simple logical and reason stemming from the undeniable fact that your freedoms exist in tension with other people's freedom
example: your right to listen to music as loud as you want. my right to get a good nights sleep
example: your right to drive as fast as you want. my right to live
example: your right to set off fire works. my right to not have my roof catch fire
etc., etc., etc.
please understand the issues surrounding innate freedoms more logically, and think of it less in terms of your unbridled fears of marching fascism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"If God wanted us to get high, he would have made plants that are psychoactive when smoked or ingested." -Steven Colbert
The junkies and crime deal is primarily brought about because of astronomical street prices because drugs are a high demand black market product(s). If all this stuff was legal, it would be cheap, so cheap, no crime/robberies necessary to "afford" it. A $200 daily "habit" might hit two bucks if it was legal, and that would be with fancy packaging. Think bags of sugar, how much do they cost? The real price of now illegal drugs would be closer to that than "street prices" are now. Crime related to that would be approaching zero.
Half the police departments, an entire federal agency, half the judges, could be "let go" to go try and find some productive work, and we could close half the prisons. And a lot of hospital emergency rooms wouldn't look like a warzone triage effort every evening. And the "news" people would have to actually go and find some important stuff to investigate and write about. And mexico could maybe have a chance of building a real nation..and so on, too many positive results would be garnered from dropping drug prohibition. Ya, it would be the lesser of two evils, but right now we are still stuck with all the negative aspects of abusive drug use, PLUS the artificially negative created aspects of keeping them "illegal".
Liquid drugs prohibition did not work, it was a *total failure* and just made things worse (organized crime gangs prospered, official corruption soared, joe average had to worry about being a "criminal" or who he might need to payoff to avoid getting busted, etc).
Dry and leafy drug prohibition today is exactly the same, just moreso. It is the height of stupidity, but it's great and hugely profitable for both the huge organized crime gangs, the corrupt officials who take bribes (thousands of them, plus all the corrupt banks and real estate people and restaurants, etc who launder money), and for the mercenary poseur "drug warriors", lawyers, judges, the private prisons system that has developed, and various politicians. Job security for all those people. Well paid, too. It also, and this is even worse, has conditioned society to accept no knock raids, shooting people because "they made a furtive gesture", random stops, etc. That part is really really sucky. People got state sponsored terrorized into accepting half way to total big brother, literally scared into it.
It's ludicrous, and it is harmful for society to keep those things illegal. Yes, a lot of people will still get really fucked up if it was legal..they are anyway, that's a zero sum game to argue that point. There are no credible stats available to show that "drug use" is any higher now than back when all of this was still legal. And violent crime is much higher since two things occurred in our "justice" system, making drugs illegal, and instituting the two or three strikes laws.
Now that folks who are facing life with no parole are up against a decision to make in a split second, they mostly go "fuggit" and resort to violence, either to avoid arrest or to "leave no witnesses", etc.
People like to talk about the US "wild wild west" as being somehow more dangerous and scary. On the contrary, there was much less crime back then. Almost everything was legal, and if you were a persistent REAL bad guy, a for-real "threat to society", your recidivism rate was quite low, because some local citizen would just cap you in mid crime and that would be that.
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?
I don't know what gave you this impression.
The fundamental philosophy of "anti-nanny staters" is that it's not the governments job to protect people from themselves. Your mistaken if you believe that the majority of us take drug use to be an exception to this principle.