311–320 of 421 posts
Given cannabis has a medicinal use for many how is fair to target it specifically and not also hold other medications that cause fatigue & drowsiness to the same standard?
How confident are you that the results will indicate a level of impairment, rather than a particular concentration of THC? Other substances contained in cannabis have significant synergistic effects with THC; are you going to look for other cannabinoids and the presence of terpenes?
Offical response from University of Waterloo alumni appreciated
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.
Our current device only screens to see if you used cannabis in the last 2-4 hours (which aligns with the approximate window of impairment for cannabis). It does not actually assign a degree of impairment to a particular concentration (ie if our device returns a higher concentration, it does not necessarily more impaired).
This is actually good for chronic users. In all our tests, both frequent and infrequent users had no detectable trace of THC left in their breath 3 hours after consumption. Therefore, our test does not discriminate between frequent and infrequent users in the same way blood does.
I think this is great idea, congrats. What about testing in the workplace? It has always bothered me that someone could fail a drug test for weed at work even if they hadn't smoked in 2 weeks, but someone can show up slightly hungover and be 'fine'. I would find it acceptable if you had some accident and they could test that you were under the influence right then.
We have actually been talking to a lot of TPAs (the organizations that do drug testing for industry). We have some interest, but unfortunately a lot of employers still have a stigma against cannabis. They are happy failing people for using the drug on the weekend because they really don't want drug users working for them. Hopefully this gets challenged in court soon, but until then we will need to do some educating.
How are you accounting for different consumption forms?
Have you filed for patent protection yet?
Is the sensor gnp based?
Hi, I'm just curious if you have any reference to help elaborate on the similarities of imparment as it relates to negative impact on a persons abilities (especially those known to have significant impact driving preformance)?
Is there any studied or understood similarity between the level of driving imparment when breath samples measure 208 ppm ethanol vs 0.00001 ppm cannabinoids (you may have mean just THC here but it's not clear to me)?
If there is a similar increase in the likelyhood of a fatal accident when breath measures 208 ppm ethanol vs 0.00001 ppm of the devil's lettuce I'll eat my shoe!
I don't mean to dismiss any potential impact of cannabis consumption on the likelyhood of fatal accidents or injuries but I do believe the impact is often greatly misrepresented when compared to alcohol consumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think comments like this are incredibly harmful. There is a strong need for this device, and this person is working to fill the need. To also hoist the responsibility of fixing society's fundamental issues and ask him/her to give up the revenue (not just profit) that they earns is absurd. I would say that this person is doing more than their fair share.
Doing more than their fair share of what? It looks like they recognized an issue facing society and chose to exploit the problem for money rather than actually help fix the it. The need for this device is coming from the police-industrial complex, not society at large. The war on drugs has been incredibly damaging in the U.S., and I absolutely do not want the police to have even more tools to wage it.
I absolutely agree. I think having an easy way to test for sobriety will pave the way for legalization. It makes legalization much more palatable politically.
> The need for this device is coming from the police-industrial complex, not society at large.
I have a couple of friends who live in a state with recreational weed. They work on safety critical stuff (think construction). Because of this, they get random drug tested because being impaired can mean deaths. This also means that, even though weed is perfectly legal, they cannot use it because it is impossible for their employer to test sobriety at the job site. They desperately wish a weed breathalyzer was real.
You'll test positive in a drug test weeks after smoking. We need a way to test for sobriety. I don't understand how that can possibly be controversial.