Slashdot Mirror
Breath Test For Pot Being Developed At WSU
An anonymous reader writes with this news from Tacoma, WA's News Tribune: A team at Washington State University is working to develop a breath test that could quickly determine whether a driver is under the influence of marijuana. Law enforcement officers already use preliminary breath tests in the field to estimate drivers' blood alcohol content. But no similar portable tool exists to test for marijuana impairment ... Stoned drivers have become an increasing concern since Washington voters legalized recreational use of marijuana ... A quarter of blood samples taken from drivers in 2013, the first full year the initiative was in effect, came back positive for pot. ... officers and prosecutors rely on blood tests to determine how much active THC is present in a driver's blood. Those test results aren't immediately available to patrol officers who suspect someone is driving high." Also reported: "Under Washington's legal marijuana law, those who get caught driving with a blood content of at least 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter are subject to an automatic driver's license suspension of 90 days or more."
As great as any new technology is, I hope this is antiquated by law changes before the technical application machines become practical.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
After it became legal in CO I've been playing around with it a bit and I think there is a huge difference between driving high and having used small amounts. I think if someone takes a few hits to relax about traffic they are going to be safer than a "sober" but frustrated person who tailgates and jackrabbits around. I don't think this is as cut and dry as alcohol.
Where are the properly controlled studies showing that a given level of blood THC is causally related to an increase in driving accidents?
Or will they go the route of cell phones and accidents and only look at the THC blood levels of drivers in accidents so it's impossible to show causation?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Even the National Highway Traffic Administration says measured active THC levels can't be correlated with impairment:
"It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects ... It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone." - http://www.businessinsider.com...
Also, given the difference in absorption rates between edibles and smoking, it's possible for someone who ate it to be more impaired but give a lower reading than someone who smoked it. - http://www.theverge.com/2012/1...
Maybe people could just not be stoned or drunk while they drive? Is it that much to ask?
We see this throughout history, from the paid theif catchers of victorian england, to red light cameras, to ticket quotas, manditory sentancing, the war on drugs, etc...
Theif catchers saw well dressed criminals running "theif catching rings", bringing in very questionable arrests. Red Light Cameras saw towns make "short yellows", or shorten the amount of time a traffic ligh is yellow to encourage more people to accidently get caught running a red light, making intersections far more dangerous.
Ticket quotas resulted in uneven enforcement, mainly at the end of the month to meet quota. It also tended to make the officers do unsavory things like tailgate suspects with their lights on, and arrest people for marginal violations, all for the sake of making the town money.
Manditory sentancing gave a career criminal a chance to do anything else, merely made him get comfortable in prison, and often sent him back there.
The war on drugs speaks for itselves. Massive busts fuel the DEA's budget and allowed their reckless abandonment of any and all virtues this country has stood for, but seem to still take mabey %1 of total drug sales per year off the market. They've also been caught siding with one cartel against another, letting the system continue, so long as they got their portion of the pie, arrests, and with it, funding.
No sir, as long as their financial incentive, then there is an incentive for crime to continue. Especially in this day and age, when that incentive is making a "career" that pays better than anything else, and its union isn't subject for debate like other unions.
Why not use a swab as an initial indicator like in other parts of the world.
I don't understand why this necessitates new technology, especially when it would seem more important to study level of impairment with drug concentration before going any further down the legislative road.
It will become clear even to the stoniest hippie that drugs and driving do not mix.
"I've smoked for years and never had an accident."
is pretty much the same as
"I've kept a gun in every drawer in the house for years, and never had an accident."
"I drive drunk every day and have never had an accident".
"I have unprotected sex often and have no STDs."
As a cyclist I agree with the guy above who said "fuck you" to all you bastards that think the risk of an accident is acceptable - you will usually hurt others more than yourself. If you need medication to avoid freaking out on the road, you should not drive at all.
Revoke licenses and prohibit offenders from legally enjoying soft drugs - you abuse it, you should lose it.
Even though I'm a medical cannabis user (migraines), I do believe that people shouln't be driving under the influence -- of anything, and that includes the doctor's and pharmacorp's favourte: opiates.
Here in Saskatchewan, the law is intentionally vague and refers to "Driving Under the Influence" without that being restricted to alcohol. If you're obviously impaired, the police don't have to run a bunch of tests to determine what you're impaired by -- it's your driving that is the deciding factor, and your inability to pass basic roadside sobriety tests.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.