Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 421 posts

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#291

Post by rwbcxrz »

deckar01 wrote: post #187
chadash wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in an ideal world we would do that. But by the time we come up with a perfect test that can be done roadside by police to determine driving impairment, that has very few false positives and holds up in court, we'll most likely have self driving cars and this won't be an issue anyway. I understand that everyone reacts differently to different drugs. Dale Earnhardt can probably be a little tipsy and still drive be…

Lots of behaviors impair your driving ability. A study found that being dehydrated caused the same number of driving errors as being drunk [0]. I'm sure it would be easy to make a field sobriety test for blood water content, but they don't, because safety isn't the real reason these laws get made. It's just public pressure to enforce moral values. [0]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11547199/Not-dr...

That study [0] had so many flaws it's not even funny.

1. It only had 12 participants 2. One of those participants was excluded from the final results 3. They didn't test the participants' (or a separate group's) driving ability while under the influence of alcohol (they used a simulator, so it would have been fine), and so you really can't use the results to make any comparisons between dehydration and alcohol use 4. The study was funded by the European Hydration Institute

[0]: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/20400...

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#292

Post by dragonwriter »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #245
dragonwriter wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s obvious that the police will want a device that produces more convictions If a defendant ever challenges the use of the device, an inaccurate (particularly, false-positive-producing) device is more likely to be thrown out discrediting the device class, not just the individual case, and potentially forcing after-the-fact dismissal of prior convictions. So, avoidable false-positives isn't necessarily an approach…

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that simple in practice; this comment by edmundsato [1] has a lot of good info. After-the-fact dismissal of convictions may seem like things eventually work out, but remember that in the meantime innocent people's lives are upended as they're thrown into the justice system. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20718599

> After-the-fact dismissal of convictions may seem like things eventually work out

No, it doesn't.

But, if the police motivation is maximizing convictions that stick, it's a potentiality that reduces the degree to which a system that produces false positives meets that goal. (Unless you have a system that is as comprehensive a conspiracy as the FBI crime lab wholesale fabrication of the entire field of fiber analysis where essentially all the “experts” in the field were part of the scam...and even that eventually collapsed.)

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#293

Post by SannTek »

WhoBeI wrote: post #280

Well, I do see a lot of potential problems with law enforced using ghettos as an "arrest shop" and the like but that's not really on the technology or your company. In general it's seems like a good thing, nobody wants unresponsive people zipping around in +1 tonne metal boxes. I'm curious about the "similarly impairing dose" though. Any good research, actual test results, etc? I'm assuming it's response times which…

Thanks for the comment!

Impairment is the big question surrounding the enforcement of driving under the impairment of cannabis. It varies much more than alcohol based on BMI, age, and use history. Here are a few good resources for understanding cannabis impairment and how it compares to alcohol.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/ https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01...

One of the most prolific researchers in this space is Marilyn Huestis. Anything by her is really good.

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#294

Post by SannTek »

davinic wrote: post #276
SannTek wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The science is actually pretty concrete regarding the impairing effects of THC. Because cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, it can be very difficult for researchers to get their hands on real world doses of THC. Instead, they use very low doses that are not relevant to what is actually sold at dispensaries. For a really good review of all things cannabis impairment, I would recommend looking through the following report b…

I'm shocked that an organization called the Cannabis Control Commission published a report in favor of Cannabis Control!

I urge you to read the report. I think it relays a very balanced accounting of the facts. Its also a good place to find all the studies in one document, so I don't have to send you 100 links!

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#295

Post by jsjohnst »

SannTek wrote: post #155
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps by comparing accident statistics for similarities in the two groups and then comparing the doses of each that lead to those similar accident outcomes?

You can also compare performance on other standard impairment measurements techniques, such as the standard field sobriety test, or driving simulators. There are a lot of studies looking at the effect of cannabis on these tests, although a lot of them suffer from really low doses. It is hard for researchers to get their hands on real world doses of cannabis for their studies because the drug is still schedule 1.

> It is hard for researchers to get their hands on real world doses of cannabis for their studies because the drug is still schedule 1.

I hear this trope a lot, but considering the number of states in the US that it’s legalized in, can you clarify why?

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#296

Post by reroute1 »

mikepurvis wrote: post #242
chadash wrote: post #31

I 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'm sure this varies by jurisdiction, but I really wish my local police department (in Waterloo region) were willing to put even the slightest effort toward general road safety. As a four season bike/eskate commuter who wears a gopro, I am yelled at, swerved at, I witness drivers running stop signs, exiting driveways without looking where they're going, making RTOR without looking where they are going, driving at peo…

Where is the correlation between these events and driving high being "totally a problem"

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#297

Post by Tade0 »

edmundsauto wrote: post #106
mitchellst wrote: post #26

Earlier 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…

A friend of a friend works at a facility which calibrates + certifies police breathalysers and by his account below 0,015% BAC the result is garbage, so some countries choose to set the limit at 0,02% which is enough for the devices to indicate properly most of the time.

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#298

Post by davinic »

SannTek wrote: post #294
davinic wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm shocked that an organization called the Cannabis Control Commission published a report in favor of Cannabis Control!

I urge you to read the report. I think it relays a very balanced accounting of the facts. Its also a good place to find all the studies in one document, so I don't have to send you 100 links!

I spent several minutes looking and was not able to find those links within the 223 page report.

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#299

Post by jakelazaroff »

dragonwriter wrote: post #292
jakelazaroff wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that simple in practice; this comment by edmundsato [1] has a lot of good info. After-the-fact dismissal of convictions may seem like things eventually work out, but remember that in the meantime innocent people's lives are upended as they're thrown into the justice system. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20718599

> After-the-fact dismissal of convictions may seem like things eventually work out No, it doesn't. But, if the police motivation is maximizing convictions that stick, it's a potentiality that reduces the degree to which a system that produces false positives meets that goal. (Unless you have a system that is as comprehensive a conspiracy as the FBI crime lab wholesale fabrication of the entire field of fiber analysis…

My point is that before these scams "eventually collapse", people's real lives are caught in the crossfire.

It doesn't even have to be a big conspiracy theory. Here is an instance of a breathalyzer manufacturer pressuring researchers to stop researching whether their devices are faulty [1]. Are they actually delivering false positives? Who knows! We need to bake oversight and accountability in from the jump, not try to back our way in once too many people's lives are disrupted.

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/draeger-breathalyzer-breath-te...

Re: Launch HN: SannTek (YC S19) – Breathalyzer for Cannabis

#300

Post by SannTek »

itsangaris wrote: post #125

It is documented that white & black Americans consume roughly cannabis at roughly the rate, yet black Americans are 3.73x more likely to be arrested for it (figure from the ACLU). How is this device not going to contribute to that disparity?

Thanks for the comment. Do you know if these numbers of for possession arrests or impaired driving arrests? I have been trying to look for the impaired driving arrest numbers but haven't had any luck yet.

One of the major roadblocks to legalization is fears surrounding public health risks, of which impaired driving is a component. We believe that by providing a device that makes policing cannabis impaired driving easier, we can help mitigate some of those fears. In that case, we hope the device would decrease possession arrests. As to whether or not our device would contribute to a disparity in impaired driving convictions between black and white American's, I am not 100% sure. Definitely something worth considering for us.

Post reply on HN