http://dvice.com/archives/2009/08/roadside-dope-t.php



Look out all you stoners and dopers, because the cops could soon wield a handheld device that detects your favorite controlled substance. Spit into this little plastic test tube, and you're busted — any cocaine, heroin, cannabis, amphetamines, and methamphetamine you might be partying with is no longer a secret.

Phillips, a company that makes TVs and all kinds of other techno-stuff, created this sophisticated dope-a-lysing device using nanotechnology, with a clever use of electromagnets and nanoparticles that can separate the sober from the impaired. After 90 seconds, the verdict shows up on a color-coded readout.

Philips hopes to roll out this privacy-invading drug tester in Europe by the end of the year, perhaps destined to become the next tool in the loathsome War on Drugs in the United States. My suggestion to Phillips: Create a gizmo that detects texting while driving.

8/5/2009 2:16:08 PM

so we pretty much have a year lol

8/5/2009 2:21:19 PM

loathsome War on Drugs

8/5/2009 2:22:23 PM

I hope every cop in America has one of these by the end of 2010.

And a taser, all cops need tasers.

8/5/2009 2:23:38 PM

If it is enforced correctly, which it won't be, I see no problem with it.

Driving under the influence isn't safe no matter what the substance.

Quote :

"Philips hopes to roll out this privacy-invading drug tester in Europe by the end of the year, perhaps destined to become the next tool in the loathsome War on Drugs in the United States."

I mean they aren't going to be rolling up in to peoples houses testing for traces of drugs I imagine? This will be used similar to breathalyzers right?

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:25 PM. Reason : x]

8/5/2009 2:24:39 PM

i believe i will get upset about this and rant online about it.

surely that will make a difference.

^ exactly...do whatever you want to at home, but driving while impaired is dumb and dangerous

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2009 2:25:02 PM

my concern is how does it accurately determine if you're still under the influence or not, rather than if you have smoked recently or not.

i imagine this becoming a major point of contention in the overall effectiveness of product.

however that would have been one hell of an R&D team to be on.

8/5/2009 2:26:23 PM

Quote :

"Driving under the influence isn't safe no matter what the substance."

10000000000000000% false. Period.

Driving stoned is safer than driving sober.... unless you are tired or inexperienced with being stoned.
I have been stoned literally 99.9% of every time I've ever driven. Ever. Almost every single day that I drive somewhere, I have been under the influence of weed. I have never been in a wreck that was my fault, except once when I was 16.... and sober.

In other words, BRING IT! This will just bring more attention to the debate, and will eventually reveal that being stoned doesn't make you an unsafe driver.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:28 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2009 2:27:27 PM

^^ it does say this:

Phillips, a company that makes TVs and all kinds of other techno-stuff, created this sophisticated dope-a-lysing device using nanotechnology, with a clever use of electromagnets and nanoparticles that can separate the sober from the impaired.

Which is why I figured it had that ability... but I know nothing of the technology except from what was in the write up.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:28 PM. Reason : x]

8/5/2009 2:27:53 PM

It's just weed...

8/5/2009 2:30:14 PM

my theory is they want you at home stoned watching their tvs instead of out an about driving.

8/5/2009 2:30:21 PM

^hahahahaha great theory

8/5/2009 2:31:32 PM

we should legalize all drugs.

8/5/2009 2:36:04 PM

^

8/5/2009 2:36:18 PM

Quote :

"Driving stoned is safer than driving sober.... unless you are tired or inexperienced with being stoned. I have been stoned literally 99.9% of every time I've ever driven. Ever. Almost every single day that I drive somewhere, I have been under the influence of weed. I have never been in a wreck that was my fault, except once when I was 16.... and sober."

you're a real winner, aren't you?

8/5/2009 2:37:11 PM

^
What does that have to do with being a "winner"?

Furthermore, I know hundreds of people who could cite similar experiences. There is absolutely nothing dangerous about driving stoned. (Unless, as I said, you are tired or inexperience with being stoned.)

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2009 2:37:35 PM

Quote :

"Driving stoned is safer than driving sober.... unless you are tired or inexperienced with being stoned. I have been stoned literally 99.9% of every time I've ever driven. Ever. Almost every single day that I drive somewhere, I have been under the influence of weed. I have never been in a wreck that was my fault, except once when I was 16.... and sober."

I'm happy for you, but unfortunately that is very circumstantial. There will inevitably be those who are "inexperienced" on the road driving after smoking weed and they will pose a danger.

Even major proponents for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana (which I would be completely supportive of) acknowledge that it does impair your motor senses and ability to drive safely. Certainly no where near to the same degree as alcohol or harder drugs, of course...

** And I'd also like to point out that this device is NOT only for detecting weed... not that it matters.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM. Reason : x]

8/5/2009 2:37:48 PM

what a waste of money

8/5/2009 2:43:54 PM

Quote :

"There is absolutely nothing dangerous about driving stoned."

i can't believe you pretend to have an education and spit out this drivel...i call total horseshit to your assertion that driving under the influence is IN NO WAY more dangerous than driving without...the whole point is that the drug (in your case, weed) changes your perception from what's real and what isn't

am i saying that you're going to cause an accident? not necessarily...am i saying that it's just as bad as driving under the influence of coke or alcohol? of course not...but it's stupid to say that there is NOTHING dangerous about it

IIRC, driving under the influence of weed makes people drive more slowly since they're aware of the fact that they're under the influence (unlike alcohol, granted)...unless you're asserting that in EVERY case driving more slowly is safer?

8/5/2009 2:44:56 PM

Quote :

"There will inevitably be those who are "inexperienced" on the road driving after smoking weed and they will pose a danger."

Then their irresponsibility for driving while inexperienced being stoned is the problem -- not merely being stoned. You're only inexperienced being stoned for a brief while. Simply educated people that they shouldn't drive stoned IF they are inexperienced with being stoned. The other 99% of us shouldn't have to be punished for what the 1% might do.

Quote :

"Even major proponents for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana (which I would be completely supportive of) acknowledge that it does impair your motor senses and ability to drive safely."

Well, duh. They're "choosing their battles". If people truly believe that being stoned makes you an unsafe driver, then arguing for legalization at the same time as claiming that being stoned doesn't make you an unsafe driver, they'll lose credibility. But the fact remains, it does not make you an unsafe driver. At all.

8/5/2009 2:45:32 PM

Quote :

"The other 99% of us shouldn't have to be punished for what the 1% might do."

do you have some evidence to back up these numbers, or are you talking out of your libertarian ass?

8/5/2009 2:46:47 PM

this won't make the roads anymore "safer"

it just guarantees you'll be harassed even more by johnny law

8/5/2009 2:50:57 PM

While I agree that I don't want to see a huge pothead passed out on their steering wheel in front of a stop light blocking traffic, weed does not impair your ability to drive normally. If you were to do a simple double-blind study that takes a completely sober person and a stoned person, and make them drive the same stretch of road, I hypothesize that the stoner will be the safer driver out of the two. Again, from a public safety standpoint, people shouldn't drive high. From a scientific standpoint, I doubt you can prove that weed makes people impaired drivers by definition.

8/5/2009 2:52:30 PM

Quote :

"I can't believe you pretend to have an education and spit out this drivel...i call total horseshit to your assertion that driving under the influence is IN NO WAY more dangerous than driving without...the "

Quote :

"but it's stupid to say that there is NOTHING dangerous about it"

I didn't say "that driving under the influence is IN NO WAY more dangerous than driving without." I said that if the driver is inexperienced or tired, then it is. In fact, I said it more than once. I don't know where you're getting this "IN NO WAY" bullshit. (straw-man)

Quote :

"the whole point is that the drug (in your case, weed) changes your perception from what's real and what isn't"

No, it doesn't. Have you ever used weed? Tripping on acid while driving, sure, but weed? Yeah, right...

Quote :

"IIRC, driving under the influence of weed makes people drive more slowly since they're aware of the fact that they're under the influence (unlike alcohol, granted)...unless you're asserting that in EVERY case driving more slowly is safer?"

Only some people may do that. Others simply drive as normal. Hard to believe? Oh, well, it's the fucking truth. And no, I'm not asserting anything about every case of driving slower being safer.

Quote :

"do you have some evidence to back up these numbers, or are you talking out of your libertarian ass?"

You just don't get it, do you. When someone says 99% verses 1%, it is a FUCKING FIGURE OF SPEECH. Look, if you can't understand that, I'll edit it for you: "The other 99% overwhelming majority of us shouldn't have to be punished for what the 1% rest might do.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:55 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2009 2:53:46 PM

Quote :

"changes your perception from what's real and what isn't"

you need to fucking smoke some god damn weed before you say stupid shit like that. it has nothing to do with that.

i'm not saying it should be or is ok to go drive around high as hell..but it's not even comparable to driving drunk.

8/5/2009 2:54:51 PM

Quote :

"While I agree that I don't want to see a huge pothead passed out on their steering wheel in front of a stop light blocking traffic, weed does not impair your ability to drive normally. If you were to do a simple double-blind study that takes a completely sober person and a stoned person, and make them drive the same stretch of road, I hypothesize that the stoner will be the safer driver out of the two. Again, from a public safety standpoint, people shouldn't drive high. From a scientific standpoint, I doubt you can prove that weed makes people impaired drivers by definition."

Well put. Although I still contend that experienced stoners shouldn't abstain from driving simply because they're stoned.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2009 2:56:57 PM

i drive much worse blazed than buzzed.

idk.

8/5/2009 2:57:13 PM

Quote :

"From a scientific standpoint, I doubt you can prove that weed makes people impaired drivers by definition."

I would actually agree with most of what you say, Stimwalt, but is it not proven scientific fact that marijuana does in fact impair your psychomotor skills, however slight and temporary that may be.

Though, to be fair, in a lot people it is probably less of a factor than driving fatigued...

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM. Reason : x]

8/5/2009 2:58:33 PM

Quote :

"If you were to do a simple double-blind study that takes a completely sober person and a stoned person, and make them drive the same stretch of road, I hypothesize that the stoner will be the safer driver out of the two."

Me too.

8/5/2009 3:00:13 PM

A RAID ON MY ILLEGAL DRUGS?????????????

8/5/2009 3:00:51 PM

Quote :

"There is absolutely nothing dangerous about driving stoned."

Quote :

"I didn't say "that driving under the influence is IN NO WAY more dangerous than driving without.""

really?

Quote :

"you need to fucking smoke some god damn weed before you say stupid shit like that. it has nothing to do with that."

i'm sorry...i guess actual researchers might have more of a clue than you...so you're saying that these short term effects are completely and 100% false, in your vast experience?

Quote :

"- sleepiness and increased hunger - altered sense of time - impaired or reduced short-term memory - reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination, such as driving"

Quote :

"i'm not saying it should be or is ok to go drive around high as hell..but it's not even comparable to driving drunk."

i'm confused...where did anyone say that they were comparable? i know that i, for one, said:

Quote :

"am i saying that it's just as bad as driving under the influence of coke or alcohol? of course not"

8/5/2009 3:01:03 PM

Quote :

"what a waste of money"

8/5/2009 3:02:33 PM

Quote :

"When someone says 99% verses 1%, it is a FUCKING FIGURE OF SPEECH."

So far your argument has consisted of nothing more than an angry tirade of strung together figures of speech and sweeping proclamations backed by your assurance that the anecdotal evidence you possess is accurate. Way to support the cause guy.


The war on drugs needs to end. I doubt it'd happen, but this might be one of the tools to end the total prohibition of drugs. Depending on its ability to detect concentrations (as opposed to merely absence or presence) this would allow established legal limits to be created for operation of motor vehicles at a reduced capacity.

8/5/2009 3:04:07 PM

Nah, Phillips will make a fortune off of this if even one country or state adopts it. Waste of taxpayer money if that happens? Yeah...

8/5/2009 3:04:11 PM

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm

Quote :

"A modest dose of alcohol (bac=0.034 g%) produced a significant impairment in city driving, relative to placebo. More specifically, alcohol impaired both vehicle handling and traffic maneuvers. Marijuana, administered in a dose of 100 g/kg THC, on the other hand, did not significantly change mean driving performance as measured by this approach. Thus, there is evidence that subjects in the marijuana group were not only aware of their intoxicated condition, but were also attempting to compensate for it. These seem to be important findings. They support both the common belief that drivers become overconfident after drinking alcohol and investigators' suspicions that they become more cautious and self-critical after consuming low doses of THC, as smoked marijuana. THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 g/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08 g%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs' (Robbe, 1994; Robbe and O'Hanlon, 1995; O'Hanlon et al., 1995). "

Based on my own experience, as well as the DOT's research studies, there is no conclusive evidence that states that Marijuana "impairs" a person's ability to drive safely and normally. I'd be willing to bet that Sudafed is more dangerous.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2009 3:04:46 PM

Quote :

"There is absolutely nothing dangerous about driving stoned"

Quote :

"I didn't say "that driving under the influence is IN NO WAY more dangerous than driving without"

Quote :

"really?"

ahaha! Is that the best you can do? You fucking quote me, but you don't quote the full context of the statement? Jesus fucking christ, who do you think you're fooling?
This is my post. Fucking read it, and don't fucking misquote me again, fool.

Quote :

"There is absolutely nothing dangerous about driving stoned. (Unless, as I said, you are tired or inexperience[d] with being stoned.)"

Quote :

"So far your argument has consisted of nothing more than an angry tirade of strung together figures of speech and sweeping proclamations backed by your assurance that the anecdotal evidence you possess is accurate."

What the fuck is wrong with you? Is this a courtroom? A lab? The Soap Box? OMG WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?!?!?

Quote :

"The war on drugs needs to end. I doubt it'd happen, but this might be one of the tools to end the total prohibition of drugs. Depending on its ability to detect concentrations (as opposed to merely absence or presence) this would allow established legal limits to be created for operation of motor vehicles at a reduced capacity."

I agree with this.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 3:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2009 3:06:59 PM

hold up. there are research studies where i can get blazed and drive a car?

8/5/2009 3:07:20 PM

Quote :

""- sleepiness - altered sense of time - impaired or reduced short-term memory - reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination, such as driving""

Agreed. People should not drive while under the influence of a Hardee's Thickburger.

Or "America's Next Top Model"

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2009 3:07:37 PM

Quote :

"there are research studies where i can get blazed and drive a car?"

For real... I would like to participate.

8/5/2009 3:08:50 PM

what does time alteration have to do with anything?



[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 3:09 PM. Reason : ^they sure as fuck didn't have that when i took PSY101]

8/5/2009 3:08:54 PM

Quote :

"hold up. there are research studies where i can get blazed and drive a car?"

for real, sign me up

8/5/2009 3:09:26 PM

^^ smoking weed will alter the space-time continuum... didn't you hear?

(yes, I love b2thefuture)

8/5/2009 3:10:11 PM

Quote :

"What the fuck is wrong with you? Is this a courtroom? A lab? The Soap Box? OMG WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?!?!?"

I'm sorry. I thought you were making a point.

Now I realize you're just raging blindly on the internet. Proceed.

8/5/2009 3:10:11 PM

8/5/2009 3:10:39 PM

Quote :

"Agreed. People should not drive while under the influence of a Hardee's Thickburger. "

That's what I'm worried about. It's not the stoners driving around, it's the stoners driving around after they've gorged themselves on food.

8/5/2009 3:11:04 PM

Quote :

"There is absolutely nothing dangerous about driving stoned. (Unless, as I said, you are tired or inexperience with being stoned.)"

haha, okay...so what you're asserting is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DANGEROUS about driving stoned as long as certain conditions are met? so you listed two conditions - you can't be tired (what does this have to do with pot, you dumbfuck?) and you have to have experience with pot...so how much experience? i mean, since you know all about this, what amount of pot is required before you pass the "it's okay to drive while stoned out of your gourd" test? educate me, dr. willy!

Quote :

"Fucking read it, and don't fucking misquote me again, fool."

and what the FUCK are you going to do about it, you toolbag? respond with big long blocks of text? bitch about how the gubment keeps taking away your rights? kiss my ass

8/5/2009 3:12:44 PM

Quote :

"Nah, Phillips will make a fortune off of this if even one country or state adopts it. Waste of taxpayer money if that happens? Yeah..."

that's what I meant.

it's a waste of research money and time.

phillips, let's stick to tv's, k?

8/5/2009 3:13:39 PM

Quote :

"educate me, dr. willy!"

Educate yourself, troll.

Quote :

"and what the FUCK are you going to do about it, you toolbag? respond with big long blocks of text? bitch about how the gubment keeps taking away your rights?"

I'LL DO IT. I'LL FUCKING DO IT.

8/5/2009 3:18:05 PM

The one pro would be that for any major reformation of marijuana laws to take place, I think the government would at least have to have an effective method of testing people under the influence

They would then treat it similarly to a DUI (though it's obviously not as dangerous), but I don't foresee any real changes in legislation without having at least the ability to test for those under the influence while driving.

Would not be a bad trade off for the ability to partake in the privacy of one's own home

8/5/2009 3:18:17 PM

for someone who smokes as much as Willy Nilly claims to, he always comes off as pretty uptight to me...

8/5/2009 3:28:52 PM