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."

50 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 valkoinen · · Score: 5, Informative

      The question is does it detect active ingredients instead of metabolites? For example cannabis can test positive even several days (or weeks) after consumption.

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

      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!

    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 Psyborgue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    5. 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.
    6. 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".

    7. Re:Legalization by Delwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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!
    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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
    16. 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.
    17. Re:Legalization by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

      That reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago:

      What's the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver? The drunk driver runs right through the stop sign without even looking. The stoned driver stops at the stop sign and waits for it to turn green.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Legalization by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    19. Re:Legalization by SomeJoel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hell, some of my friends still argue with me that THC is a hallucinogen

      They said no such thing. I think you imagined the whole conversation.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    20. 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
    21. Re:Legalization by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Funny

      rabid prohibition group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or NAMBLA

      what

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    22. Re:Legalization by billcopc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    23. 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.

    24. Re:Legalization by Ironica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?
    25. Re:Legalization by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      So... you would rather they wait until the drivers are on the street

      Yes, I would. A family member of mine was run over and murdered by a drunk driver who hadn't even gone to a bar that night. He was on his way to the gas station for a beer run with a BAC that exceeded 0.20, swerving all over the place according to witnesses. He ran her over on the fucking sidewalk and kept going on his beer run. The police tracked him down later by following the trail of broken road signs and fences. That's how badly he was driving.

      On that particular night nearly three quarters of the local on duty police force was stationed at a nearby bar, manning a roadblock. Perhaps if they had been out patrolling instead of harassing people (the vast majority of which weren't intoxicated or even going to said bar) they would have caught this asshole before someone died? It's not like he was being particularly subtle. It was obvious that he had no business on the roadway. Too bad there wasn't any law enforcement around to catch him.

      Go do some research on your own. The facts are all there for anybody with an open mind. Most accidents involving alcohol that result in injury or death were caused by drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or higher. The vast majority of the statistics that come from the Government are lies and distortions. My favorite one is the one that says half of all automobile accidents involve alcohol. Guess how they arrive at that number? They include passengers who had alcohol in their systems even if the drivers involved were completely sober.

      Also, fuck you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. 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.

    27. Re:Legalization by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    28. 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.

    29. Re:Legalization by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    30. Re:Legalization by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm a member of DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers

    31. Re:Legalization by Inda · · Score: 3, Informative

      You say that but I know plenty of people who'll sink four pints of Stella a night. That's 12 units. That's about 13 hours to clear the alcohol out. Finish drinking at 11pm and you won't be sober until lunchtime the next day. Forget that your body slows down during sleep too.

      Eight pints on a Friday night, drive in the morning... Don't get me started. Irresponsible is a tame word to use.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    32. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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

    1. Re:False Positives? by aztektum · · Score: 3, Funny

      if $suspect == WHITE_AFFLUENT
              return poppyseed_muffin
                      else if $suspect == MINORITY or WHITE_TRASH
                              return beatdown_arrest
      endif

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  4. No it does not see the difference by Proto23 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Waste of money by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  6. 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.

  7. Test for impairment, not specific drugs. by spun · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Test for impairment, not specific drugs. by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They make a little thing that you hold up to your eye. It has a blinking LED. You press a button on the side when the light stops blinking. This tests your reaction time, and in some of the instances, instead of actually going solid, it is just flashing faster, so it also tests your perception. (If you are sleep deprived, drunk, etc, your perceptions slow down, and a blinking light will appear solid). It's smaller than a brethalizer.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    2. Re:Test for impairment, not specific drugs. by soniCron88 · · Score: 5, Funny

      *hands gameboy* "Here. Either you get at least 20,000 points on Tetris or you're going to jail, pal."

    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
  8. Its just a photo of a dog in a cap and glasses... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?"
  9. Well it was fun while it lasted by xednieht · · Score: 4, Funny

    So much for making out with crack whores.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  10. 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."
  11. Tiredness Test by lobiusmoop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."
  12. I can see the headline by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Philips screw driver."

    1. Re:I can see the headline by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Excellent!

      For another laugh, look at the corporate logo of the company developing this gadget with Philips

      http://www.concateno.com/index.php?cPath=78_193&news_id=123

      Handcuffs anyone?

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  13. "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!