One question: with such varying cannabis tolerances, how one reason about impairment levels at a given concentration? I think it’s well-intentioned, but expect this to primarily overestimate impairment of chronic users and underestimate that of naive users.
Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
131–140 of 421 posts
Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s obvious that the police will want a device that produces more convictions, no point in disputing that. Is that obvious? If this were as overwhelming an incentive as you say, we wouldn't have accurate breathalyzers for alcohol. But we do, and it's simple to see why. 1) Cops aren't the only customers; medical establishments, individuals, and workplaces also have a legitimate interest in measuring impairment. 2)…
Do we have accurate breathalyzers for alcohol? AFAIK, the manufacturers aggressively resist requirements to publish their source code or calibrations for testing. Also, AIUI, the devices require recalibration for accuracy, and it's not clear that police stations perform such maintenance. No idea how rampant this is, every system will have flaws. But I question whether we can use the alcohol breathalyzer example witho…
If breathalyzers were inaccurate, uncalibrated, or unmaintained it would be trivial to get any conviction relying on their measurements thrown out.
Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
#133Aren't alcohol breathalyzers notoriously unreliable?
the field units are garbage. the big thing back at the station that's what will be used to provide data for the trial can be just fine if properly maintained.
Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
#134Would police be looking to use this as a pre-screen, and then take a blood test if your device reported impairment, or would they be directly using your test in court? Would it simply output the concentration, or would you provide added value via some sort of research/conversion chart that prosecutors can use in court to link the breath concentration to actual impairment, since most states don't have a statutory concentration set for marijuana?
Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
#135Is someone driving high dangerous?
..yes? Is it some trick question?
No, all the published articles I've read come from testing people who've been in a MVC, who were also at fault. With plenty of confounding variables as well.
I'm specifically looking for a dose dependent study that shows level of THC intoxication has positive correlation with driving impairment. With a large sample size. Hopefully from some group not looking to prove something.
Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's still applicable regardless of legality... that doesn't change police profiling and would still adversely affect minority groups. So instead of more people of color getting arrested for marijuana possession they get arrested for marijuana dui
Racial profiling is still applicable/relevant in another form, yes. But that's a different thing from 'war on drugs' per se. Legalization has taken away the police's ability to target for consumption, and removed their ability to ruin people's lives for it. That's huge. And the gov't will now be providing a way for people to strike old possession crimes from their record, apparently.
Legalization does take that ability away, and to some extent this sort of enables it. The simple solution is don't drive under the influence and you will have no issues, but the arbitrary nature of these tests and what happens in real life leave me feeling less than confident this would play out fairly.
Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
#137I don't understand the negativity in many of the comments here. I'm all for legalization of marijuana, but I actually think that the inability to test for people driving high is a very reasonable argument against legalization. I generally feel that people should be able to make their own choices, but not if those choices involve driving a 3000 pound piece of metal down the highway while impaired. Yes, we need to be c…
I get that breathalyzers give you a nice simple, relatively objective number to point at, but shouldn't we be testing for actual impairment rather than the presence of chemicals which may or may not be an indicator of impairment?
Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
#138Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes, you might feel perfectly fine, but I don't want your subjective opinion of how well you think you can drive under the influence of marijuana to be the determining factor in whether we let you drive after smoking pot or not. Couldn't you approach the same problem by testing the capabilities of the driver rather than testing the amount of a substance in their system (after all there are countless substances than…
> Would an improved field sobriety test be a more appropriate product than an improved breathalyzer? Yes, do you have such a test?
No, but I'm also not the one selling breathalyzers either. I was merely offering a hypothetical product that people could work on that would both meet the need this company identified and satisfy most of the complaints from the community here.
Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis
#140>A similarly impairing dose of cannabis results in 0.00001 ppm
Yeah this isn't going to work. The detection threshold is so low it's gonna go off if someone is smoking weed within 500 feet. There will be so many false positives it will practically be a divining rod.
Police already abuse sniffer dogs frequently, we shouldn't allow them to use another unreliable tool to arrest people.