Niteshift

I know this doesn't relate directly to protecting your rights, but it fits with a frequently asked question in this section, so I hope the mods will indulge me for a minute.

Often, people ask how the cops will prove they're using pot while driving or even walking. Well, here is the newest answer:

http://www.lifepointinc.com/

It works by sucking saliva out of your mouth, the same as the dentist suction device. It tests for several drugs and alcohol. It takes 5 minutes to get the results and the unit is actually smaller than it looks.

Thought you should know about it.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

huh?

I hope they perfect it, it's a step on the roads to decriminalization/legalization. But I have a problem with it: " Saliva /blood will generally be positive immediately after ingestion and for 18 - 24 hours depending on the drug, body metabolism, dosage, etc." I am not stoned for 18-24 hours after smoking (more like 1.5-4.5 hours) but this test might say I am.

__________________
"I spread disease like a dog,
Discharge my payload a mile high!
Rotten egg air of death wrestles your nostrils.
Launch the Polaris! The End doesn't scare us!"

Niteshift

The presence alone does not indicate being impaired. Just like drinking half a beer doesn't make you drunk.

The "intoxication" will be based on the level, usually determined in parts per million.

Larmer

I'll assume that this new test only tests for presence, and not concentration, correct?

Even so, one of the major reasons in Canada barring decriminalization/legalization is the inability to test for concentration using a roadside test. If it were decriminalized, there should definitely be tests available, since stoned drivers can be just as dangerous as drunk drivers.

goldberry

"The first non-invasive saliva-based on-site drug and alcohol testing system"

WOW! I never knew drug tests could be non-invasive

__________________
"Is our children learning?" George W. Bush

dmbtex

That's not entirely accurate. It oversimplifies many studies that have been done on the matter, most of which say that if there is any serious imparement to driving ability, it is far less than that due to alchahol consumption.

Niteshift

He said they CAN be. He's right.

He didn't say they ALL are.

Besides, we've discussed those tests before and there were problems with their methodology, including the fact that they used ridiculously low concentrations of THC.

dmbtex

There have been many field studies on driving under the influence of cannabis. Likewise, there have been MANY different methods, many of which have used high doses of THC. In fact, most studies are flawed and biased AGAINST marijuana drivers. They use people who have never smoked and driven, people who are not great drivers in the first place, and people who have simply never smoked at all. Few decent experiments have used experienced drivers (who often drive while high), and those have almost always shown that there is very little if any adverse effect on driving capability. There was also a scientific study that studied all motor and mental skills which concluded that marijuana is a drug with a 100% compensation rate, which means that anything done while clean can be done equally well high with enough practice.

Peace.

Niteshift

Yet you totally avoided the fact that what Larmer said was accurate and truthful and your "clarification" was totally unnecessary.

dmbtex

Yah, because Larmer was right. I was simply commenting on your misinformation.