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

321–330 of 421 posts

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

#321

Post by Fogest »

reroute1 wrote: post #290
ryanmercer wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Weed is also in other forms like edibles too which are quite potent. I have seen many people who have smoked excessive amounts, or had way too many edibles. I have personally working in the event medical field dealt with countless people who are puking and unconscious due to weed. Every now and then you also hear that a law enforcement officer got high and called 911 panicking, googling "cop calls 911 high" brings u…

I disagree wholeheartedly, but even if I agreed with you that doesn't mean that this breathalyzer is a good solution: To the points about people passing out or cops calling 911 on themselves that speaks to the incredible variety of experience people have and what someone might experience their first time with edibles. It's not comparable to the effects smoking has on regular users, and not something anyone should be…

I don't see how the argument is much different than for someone having some beers? If they have a few beers daily and blow over is this fair as it likely is not impairing them due to a higher tolerance? How is this different than if a regular weed user were to blow over, but also may have a higher tolerance?

The problem is that you can't really test for these tolerances, especially not in the field. That's why it's usually better to air on the side of caution and set a limit.

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

#322

Post by SannTek »

kickopotomus wrote: post #223

> a similarly impairing dose of cannabis results in 0.00001 ppm of the drug in breath. Would you mind citing a source? My understanding of why this has been a difficult problem thus far is that THC concentration is not inversely proportional to motor function (unlike alcohol). I.e. the drug effects people differently and simply measuring THC concentration alone is not enough to indicate intoxication or lack thereof.

This comment comes from the fact that peak THC impairment occurs 1 hour post consumption (see the NHTSA Marijuana-Impaired Driving, A Report to Congress) and our average measurement at that time for THC in breath is around 0.00001 ppm. With alcohol, the cut off for impairment is 0.08% BAC which correlates to around 200 ppm of alcohol. So concentration of THC at the time of peak impairment is 0.00001 ppm whereas the concentration of alcohol is 200 ppm at the time of peak impairment. We did not mean to say 0.00001 ppm THC = 200 ppm of alcohol. We just wanted to illustrate the magnitude different in detecting both molecules. I guess it was not well worded :(.

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

#323

Post by stevenhuang »

sergiomattei wrote: post #175
nlh wrote: post #168

Interesting idea (congrats on launching) and interesting discussion here. Reading this thread has popped up some questions in my mind and I'm curious to hear thoughts: Why do we (aka society aka the police) test for specific substance quantities at all? Really, I think, what we care about is whether someone is able to competently perform the task of driving at a given moment. If you are unable to perform that task, t…

You can test and arrest for objective things, not subjective ones. "Who can or can't drive" is a subjective criteria. Objective criteria is someone under the influence of x or y substance.

What's subjective about a field driving test?

The reason is simply that it's impractical to do so. It's easier to run a quick BAC test, look at a number, and call it in than supervise a road test. So you can imagine there being false positives where the person fails the test but would otherwise drive safely.

Don't forget the true intent of these tests are to determine impaired driving. The criteria of "being under the influence of something" has historically been a useful analogue for that, but the question is if we can do better somehow by testing for impaired driving directly and not 2nd order metrics.

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

#324

Post by dragonwriter »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #299
dragonwriter wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

Yeah, I’m not disagreeing with that, nor does it seem to disagree with my point, that the consequences of the nearly-inevitable collapse makes it dubious that maximizing positive results by encouraging false positives is actually a means to the proposed police goal of maximizing convictions, if by that one means convictions that stick.

I never suggested, and also explicitly rejected, the idea that this even superficially results in a no-harm situation.

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

#325

Post by [deleted] »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #15

So many naysayers here, many of which probably aren't sharing the road with cannabis consuming drivers in a region where it is 100% legal like here in Canada. I've consumed it many times, and I know how impaired I'd be behind the wheel. It terrifies me to think of all the idiots who are probably out there driving while stoned, pretending they're "perfectly fine." EDIT: cool, these guys are around the corner from wher…

[deleted]

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

#326

Post by jakelazaroff »

dragonwriter wrote: post #324
jakelazaroff wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> My point is that before these scams "eventually collapse", people's real lives are caught in the crossfire. Yeah, I’m not disagreeing with that, nor does it seem to disagree with my point, that the consequences of the nearly-inevitable collapse makes it dubious that maximizing positive results by encouraging false positives is actually a means to the proposed police goal of maximizing convictions, if by that one me…

I understand. One point of disagreement that I could have made more clear is that I don't think the collapse is "nearly-inevitable" at all.

I'm also skeptical that it provides sufficient motivation to spend the money to bring the false positive rate down to X acceptable level. This is a for-profit company; they're going to try to get the lowest ratio of R&D spend to revenue that they can.

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

#329

Post by cortesoft »

slg wrote: post #64
Noah_SannTek wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely consider ethical implications for bringing this product to market. We currently live in a world where it's a "free-for-all", and officers establish reasonable suspicion, which leads to an arrest, without any objective evidence. We hypothesize that this is part of the reason why there's a higher number of PoC arrested. This doesn't happen with alcohol, because there is an objective device.

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. People are innocent until proven guilty. If there is no evidence, then they aren't convicted (EDIT: for the record, testimony is evidence). Adding an avenue to collect more evidence is going to cause more people to be convicted. Sure, you will probably get some people exonerated, but there is no question that you will get a larger number of people convicted. I am not going to wei…

Are we sure this is true? I would be curious to see the current conviction ratio (convicted / arrested) for driving while impaired by alcohol vs marijuana. If there is a lower conviction rate for marijuana currently, you might be right... but it could be that courts simply choose to believe the cops word when there is no hard evidence.

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

#330

Post by cortesoft »

01100011 wrote: post #272
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #15

So many naysayers here, many of which probably aren't sharing the road with cannabis consuming drivers in a region where it is 100% legal like here in Canada. I've consumed it many times, and I know how impaired I'd be behind the wheel. It terrifies me to think of all the idiots who are probably out there driving while stoned, pretending they're "perfectly fine." EDIT: cool, these guys are around the corner from wher…

I was an all-day pothead for 16 years with hundreds of thousands of miles behind the wheel. I had zero at-fault accidents and 2 speeding tickets during that time. I find it hard to support regulating something like THC or other metabolite threshold testing because I feel like it completely ignores the overall relationship to impairment. Driving with an anger management issue is a much more serious problem in my exper…

This really means nothing. There are people who drive drunk all the time who can say the same, but that doesn’t mean it is not dangerous.
Post reply on HN