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

391–400 of 421 posts

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

#391

Post by lsc »

rxhernandez wrote: post #243
bdcravens wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Texas, you receive a mandatory suspension for refusing just a breathalyzer, even if you are found to not be over the legal limit, or are never convicted of a DWI. Blood tests are then often obtained via warrant (and it's typical to have a judge "on call" to sign and fax those orders on demand)

That's utterly disgusting that the state can invade your body and take blood out with a warrant.

I personally think it's utterly disgusting that people are allowed to operate what are essentially giant weapons in public with extremely minimal testing or training, and with minimal limits on alcohol usage. I think it's totally reasonable to ask people to give up some of the rights they'd normally have, when those people want to operate heavy machinery in public.

My understanding is that GA pilots are not allowed to fly within 8 hours of consuming any alcohol (my understanding is that most commercial outfits have more stringent limits) - I personally think this makes a lot of sense for operating a motor vehicle, too.

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

#392

Post by ehnto »

michaelmrose wrote: post #348
ehnto wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why many states follow a positive breathalyzer test with a blood test. In my state, you can refuse them both, but you lose your license temporarily for doing so. I think that's fair. I understand some are skeptical about giving blood to the police, but if you can't prove you're not drunk or high after a positive reading on a less accurate device, then you aren't allowed on the road. The risk is too great for…

If the device is wildly inaccurate why would you be obliged to prove your innocence barring other evidence of impairment.

It points very strongly toward intoxication. There is just enough false positives that they are required by the state to also take a blood test.

It's a confirmation, and when you're about to sentence someone on the spot with what is often a life changing, multi year disqualification from driving, the courts require the police to be absolutely sure.

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

#393

Post by Fnoord »

grayhatter wrote: post #362
Fnoord wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars using ML will at times have to answer to philosophical questions such as trolley problem.

Honestly, no they don't. If the car is following all applicable laws, no one should ever be in any danger. If someone has violated the law, they have inherently accepted the risks of their decision, and thus the car should protect the occupants. Someone tied to the street, doesn't apply because (in my state) the car should be moving at a speed that it would be able to stop in time. Someone thrown from a bridge into a…

> If someone has violated the law, they have inherently accepted the risks of their decision, and thus the car should protect the occupants.

Well, then you are going to need a different ML ruleset here in The Netherlands because bicyclists are protected by law. In the case of an accident with a car, the car driver is (almost always) at fault. That being said, since july 2019 it is illegal to operate a smartphone from your bicycle which, at times, was at odds with the earlier mentioned law.

I assume other countries in the world are going to have different (perhaps in eyes of some peculiar) exceptions to what is deemed normal.

The whole problem with your argument is this it is all "nice, in theory".

> should default to doing the least amount of damage.

"Should", indeed. The question is whether all of these ethical related aspects have been thought out. As the above suggests not only from the US (or whatever state you are in) PoV but with taking into account the entire world and the entire world's ethics and law. Heck, you might have to switch rulesets when crossing a border. Either way that is a very, very complex ruleset you're going to have to work with. And I doubt it is being done...

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

#394

Post by computerex »

aianus wrote: post #231
computerex wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you guys actually established a relationship between presence of THC and actual driving impairment? I doubt it. Seems to me that you guys are just out to make a quick buck and the way you are framing the rhetoric is just a nice story. At what levels of THC concentrations is driving empirically impaired and is this measurement consistent across everyone? What evidence do you have to support that THC impairs drivi…

> At what levels of THC concentrations is driving empirically impaired and is this measurement consistent across everyone? What evidence do you have to support that THC impairs driving? The Government of Canada has already legislated [0] that THC impairs driving and that the per-se limit is 2ng of THC per ml of blood. I'm certain this YC company had nothing to do with lobbying for that legislation and that it would h…

I'm not sure why you mention Canadian legislation when this product is for America. Secondly, Canadian government setting these constraints doesn't mean that THC impairs driving. What is their evidence? Laws aren't always supported by science and data.

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

#395

Post by computerex »

CosmicShadow wrote: post #352
computerex wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any proof that cannabis impairs driving?

I don't even understand how this is a question in anyone's mind.

Because studies show that Marijuana results in no functional impairment in test courses? Maybe you should learn to trust data and science rather than just your preheld beliefs that aren't necessarily rooted in sound logic or reasoning.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/#S3titl...

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

#396

Post by computerex »

rbobby wrote: post #184
computerex wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any proof that cannabis impairs driving?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

From the paper you linked

> Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol

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

#397

Post by computerex »

derekdahmer wrote: post #196
computerex wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any proof that cannabis impairs driving?

Here is a good overview of dozens of studies that have performed on subject. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/#S3titl... The tl;dr is Cannabis absolutely impairs the core skills you use when driving, but also raises your awareness of your impairment so those under the influence tend to drive more cautiously. The result is in simulator studies cannabis shows a clear negative effect, but in function…

Please fully read and understand the resource you linked

> Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol.

And the conclusion that the lack of functional impairment is due to increased awareness of impairment is merely speculation and is not based on any empirical result.

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

#398

Post by Pfhreak »

inflatableDodo wrote: post #384
mkl wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your "general usage" is actually fairly specific to particular places and people. Without the explanations, I wouldn't have gleaned the meanings you're assigning (I'm a native English speaker from NZ). It seems pointlessly obfuscated and offensive to me.

Thought I'd go find out if I was being particularly insensitive or if people were clutching their pearls a bit tightly. Couldn't find many examples, but here they are in the wild and not causing any noticable problems. Firstly, twatproof , from reply #14 in the Festool owner's group to a question about dovetails: > "I just had a go with the Festool jig and it's the most twatproof solution I've ever seen." https://www…

This seems like a very strange idea to triple down on. Take or leave the feedback, but I'm not sure you are helped by trying to debate the relative merit of these terms.

FWIW, as a native English speaker I also found your post both needlessly offensive and equally inscrutable.

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

#400

Post by jsjohnst »

SannTek wrote: post #303
jsjohnst wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

For one, it makes it difficult for federally funded entities since the federal government views it as illegal. Also, lots of funding for state entities comes from federal sources. I have also heard of researchers having trouble with institutional review boards that still follow the federal guidelines.

Thx!
Post reply on HN