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

371–380 of 421 posts

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

#371

Post by [deleted] »

SannTek wrote: post #366
rcw4256 wrote: post #342

The Draeger breathalyzer fiasco in Washington State was mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Draeger has consistently resisted attempts to make its source code public. Will you commit to publicly releasing the source code to your "cannalyzer" device firmware?

Nice name for the device! To be honest, neither of the founders are electronics or software people, we are nanotech engineers. I don't actually know how useful the source code would be for determining if our device is working as intended. We would certainly release information regarding how our device performs QC checks and have the device validated by a third party.

[deleted]

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

#372

Post by scottlocklin »

1) As others have repeatedly asked: does it work if you eat a pot brownie, or is it based on smoking only?

2) What do "nanotech engineers" study in school that makes them qualified to manufacture something like this? Is that like a $2 word for a chemist?

Good luck with your launch.

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

#373

Post by [deleted] »

core-questions wrote: post #96
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PoC are disproportionately pulled over by police. EDIT: And that means you'll never get accurate numbers on consumption/offense rates. So using those numbers is fully questionable.

How do you know it's disproportionate? What if they're actually speeding / breaking traffic laws / driving unmaintained vehicles more often?

[deleted]

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

#374

Post by johnmarcus »

$20 per test!!!!!!!! That's not the police's "money", it's the tax payers. it's mine. no offense, but I feel like this is a ripoff. Seems innocent until you realize each cop could easily blow through (pun intended) $1,000 of my tax payer money in a quick evening and maybe if we are lucky catch 1 "bad guy". That's a lot of my tax dollars to make you rich, too much if you ask me.

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

#375

Post by mkl »

inflatableDodo wrote: post #364
undoware wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reading HN as a woman is an exercise in managing fury

My apologies if I have caused offense. I have angered you here and this wasn't my intention. One thing I will say is that the prefixes I gave are in general use as descriptive epithets by both men and women across much of the English speaking world, along with many others decribing the male genitalia, with much greater frequency than you will find on here. Personally, I'm with Alice Fraser on this one - https://www.y…

Why not just say what you mean? The prefixes you used are incomprehensible without the parentheticals following them ("(deliberate misuse)" etc.), so why not just use those?

I'm not convinced it breaks down into three clean categories anyway.

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

#376

Post by johnmarcus »

SannTek wrote: post #207
cbthrowaway wrote: post #176

I've been a daily cannabis user for over a decade. I have a prescription for this, like millions of others with prescriptions for psychoactive medications without driving limitations. Would you send someone to prison for driving because they took their Adderall that morning? Cannabis is not like alcohol in regard to impairment of motor function and decision-making under the influence. Surely the same concentrations o…

Thank you for your feedback. It is really valuable to get the perspective of a frequent cannabis user. Cannabis tolerance is definitely a huge factor in determining whether or not someone is impaired. As a daily user, I am sure you are fine to drive after having used cannabis (although this is not legal advice :) ). However, people forget that there are significant tolerance effects for alcohol as well. There are peo…

>The key is finding a limit that allows police to identify actually impaired drivers while giving those with tolerance enough leeway to avoid being falsely charged

Given that is an impossible statement, it sounds like you are admitting this will be used to falsely prosecute more people than it will let off the hook. This is a smash and grab that will adversely effect society, not help it. You keep comparing it to alcohol, but you should be comparing it to adderall. Do you think society needs adderall testing curbside as well?

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

#377

Post by johnmarcus »

eternalny1 wrote: post #273

Well we can certainly see who smokes weed in here ... and probably who smokes weed and drives. I'm all for marijuana legalization but sensible tests to prevent driving while high sound good to me. You can't drive drunk, and marijuana can impair your driving abilities.

it also enhances your awareness though, resulting in more cautious driving. No studies have seen increased accidents in areas where marijuana has been legalized. Should we be testing for adderall curbside as well? What other prescription drugs would you like to restrict curbside? They all effect motor ability, after all.

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

#378

Post by inflatableDodo »

mkl wrote: post #375
inflatableDodo wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My apologies if I have caused offense. I have angered you here and this wasn't my intention. One thing I will say is that the prefixes I gave are in general use as descriptive epithets by both men and women across much of the English speaking world, along with many others decribing the male genitalia, with much greater frequency than you will find on here. Personally, I'm with Alice Fraser on this one - https://www.y…

Why not just say what you mean? The prefixes you used are incomprehensible without the parentheticals following them ("(deliberate misuse)" etc.), so why not just use those? I'm not convinced it breaks down into three clean categories anyway.

>The prefixes you used are incomprehensible without the parentheticals following them

I disagree. In the taxonomy of these things, being a twat is more impulsive misbehaviour, while being a cunt involves malicious aforethought and intent. There is a fairly clear meaning from that general usage.

>I'm not convinced it breaks down into three clean categories anyway.

I agree, but I didn't make it up and people tend to use the rule of three for stuff like this. I suppose a category of dickproof could be added between foolproof and twatproof, but I think it already has a lot of overlap with foolproof.

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

#379

Post by mbrameld »

SannTek wrote: post #255
woah wrote: post #4

Sounds like it’s well-intentioned, but I’m afraid that given the incentives of all parties involved here, and the complexity of the technology, there will be a lot of false positives. It’s obvious that the police will want a device that produces more convictions, no point in disputing that. I’m wondering if you can elaborate on what incentives your company has to produce accurate devices, against your customer’s unst…

You raise a good point. Interestingly, your comments run contrary to what a lot of law enforcement officers have said to us. In general, the police are hyper vigilant about buying only devices that are independently validated to be very accurate. Every conversation we have had has eventually lead to "is it NHTSA approved?". The reason for this need for third party validation is that the police are incredibly court ro…

> In general, the police are hyper vigilant about buying only devices that are independently validated to be very accurate.

How do you reconcile that with the reality of the NIK tests which are notoriously unreliable and ubiquitous among police departments?

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

#380

Post by Phlarp »

davidw wrote: post #89
InitialLastName wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Past that, if you've been awake for 18 hours, you're very likely to be impaired to the same extent as a 0.08 BAC.

Certainly. That's not a good reason to let people drive high or drunk though.

It would be a good reason to put effort into a "breath test for sleep" before other "breath test for X" methods / devices.
Post reply on HN