DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... First dual marijuana, alcohol breathalyzer test developed

California company develops first dual marijuana, alcohol breathalyzer test

Hound Labs, a venture backed start-up company, has created the first dual marijuana Opens a New Window. and alcohol breathalyzer.

The dual breathalyzer will provide law enforcement and employers an instant analysis of how much THC, the chemical compound in cannabis, an individual has in their system.

“In breath were marijuana only stays for a couple of hours there is no legal precedence yet for it,” Hound Labs Co-Founder Mike Lynn Lynn told FOX Business’ Stuart Varney on Tuesday. “What will happen is that we give objective data to the police officer at the road side or to the employer at the work place that says ‘Hey that person you just measured has THC in their breath.’”

A study done by the National Center for Biotechnology Information Opens a New Window. found that marijuana impairs driving abilities, and use of the drug is still prohibited by many companies.

Lynn said the Hound breathalyzers will become available for commercial purchases later this year.

“Multiple law enforcement agencies have tested it, and we are in the process of commercializing it so that it’ll be out on the streets and in the work place later this year,” he said.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/cal...eathalyzer-test

Keep the little man down!

Should make for safer roadways and workplaces.

Should make for more revenue for the court systems, attorneys, higher insurance costs, more jail time for people driving w/a suspended license, targeting of certain socio-economic groups, etc.

All hail free enterprise at the expense of those who can least afford it!!!

I have always found this argument spurious. There are rules, follow the rules and you don't have a problem. Don't follow the rules, and there are consequences. The same consequences apply to all people, no matter their socio-economic group.

Until The People insist that a substantive change be considered... and then, the rules change.

IMO, that is exactly why these arguments are NOT 'spurious.'

The rule of Law in America is a living, evolving concept. This particular example is in flux, even as we speak... hence, this ongoing conversation.

Any of us who say to ourselves: "This is settled law... case closed" is choosing to be left behind in the ongoing dynamic.

"Stay current- or get left out of the ongoing conversation..."

.02

I agree with what you are saying, the laws concerning marijuana are in flux, as they should be. And I agree that the law is a living thing that changes as social norms change. My issue, what I call spurious, is the argument that certain laws somehow unfairly target lower income citizens, or citizens of color. While the laws may be in flux, they are what they are at any given point in time. Obey them, and you don't have to worry. If you don't follow the law, there are consequences, and they are the same for all.

If you want to smoke it, then you should be able to. Recreational weed should be legalized everywhere. Just stay out from behind the wheel of a motor vehicle when you partake. This really should go without saying.

j/c

Maybe I missed something here but I've been saying this would be something quite doable for a very long time. It's actually a very fair way to conduct things.

No matter who you are, you shouldn't be wanting anyone to be driving around drunk or high.

The old way would have been if they had any hint you were high, they could demand a urine or blood sample to check for marijuana. There is nothing fair about that. Most everyone knows that weed can stay in your system for up to a month. Even longer if you've been smoking weed for an extended period of time.

With a breath test, it only tells if you've smoked very recently. It's a much fairer way of telling if someone is operating a vehicle while they're high. I applaud a fair test to keep impaired drivers off the road without unfairly punishing those who are not under the influence.

Tinctures anyone? Gummies, topicals?

^ This.

Make pot legal-- just don't smoke and drive like you can't drink an drive. This isn't really that difficult.

I lost my 21-year old cousin to a drunk driver ~15 years ago. So yeah, get as drunk/high as you want, but don't freaking drive. Especially in today's Uber-available world, there's no excuse.

As the resident stoner on this board, I support this.

While we historically are painfully slow drivers, at the end of the day, driving under the influence is bad and should not be condoned.

But they can afford pot? That stuff's not cheap.

A little over the top? Maybe. But nobody here can read that and say with confidence that the primary goal isn't revenue, but rather, keeping the stoners out of the slow lane.

I have no problem with the notion that "impaired" drivers shouldn't be on the road. First thing that comes to mind, but isn't worth arguing about, is the level of impairment. Give me pot smokers over "texters" 100% of the time. Yet, nobody is going to jail for texting unless they cause an accident. I'll take smokers over drinkers 100% as well.

My problem is that I don't believe a "breath test" will work fairly and accurately for marijuana. If MJ is only measurable in breath for a couple hours, it's just a precursor for a blood test... which is unfair by definition as marijuana stays in your system for (up to) days longer than when you were actually "impaired". As GM said, what about tinctures and edibles? Won't do anything to address that.

The company's website makes a compelling argument that it can measure amounts of THC down to a picogram. With MJ becoming more and more legal (and socially acceptable) across the country, something must be done to keep impaired drivers off the road. Perhaps a step in the right direction. However, as a breath test, if this only addresses people who smoke, it's just a head's up to "party people" to chew up some gummies, or chocolate, or use the vape pen, or a tincture, etc... Hardly seems like a be-all-end-all, and is such, is just a beta version that will be challenged and tossed out of most courts in the short term.

It's not just driving on public streets, it's working on a construction site, driving a train, performing surgery, carrying a gun... literally anywhere that you don't want somebody to have been drinking, this would also apply.

40,000 people were killed in car accidents last year in the U.S.

Third consecutive year of 40,000+ deaths. That’s ~ 19.5 people every day.

~40,000 people will die this year. (19.5 today)

Last year, 4.5 million other people were very lucky and only sustained “serious injuries”.


She sure is lucky.

The vast majority of these casualties are due to bad driving and are preventable.

Impaired driving deaths account for ~ 25% (~10,000 deaths/year)

A new “breathalyzer” may have a miniscule impact. Some people with serious drinking/drugging problems may be kept off the roads. (but only if they’re locked up - plenty of fatalities are due to unlicensed drivers)

The new breathalyzer is just chatter. I agree with the big money maker for attorneys and insurance companies angle.

If we want to save lives why not put camera's in every car and arrest the idiots who think it's OK to stare at the person next to them while talking for 10/15/20/25/ and 30 seconds. You now just like they do on TV every single night.

I would have no problem with a 2 way (inside and out) camera today ..... but when I was younger, I wouldn't have wanted one in my car.

You and me both. I would still be on death row

People ignore the driving part. I've lost a 19-year-old daughter, my grandmother and a 5-year-old nephew to drunk drivers.

God Bless you Fish.

My heart goes out to you Fish I can only imagine what you have gone through, But I nor anybody else can really realize just how hard that is unless we have suffered the same losses

You've borne more than any person should have to bear.
Respect. Condolences.

Fish, I think you are a great guy and I am so sorry for you loss. I almost didn't reply because of your situation. However, I think I owe you an explanation.

I think my main point was misconstrued, perhaps because I was not clear. One guy challenged it and I get his point. Two others pulled their usual crap.

So...........I would never advocate driving impaired. I don't do it. I rarely go out anymore, but if I do, I let my wife drive [who doesn't drink] or call Uber. Hell, I don't even smoke weed. The only time I smoked in the last 32 years was at my son's bachelor party. I quit using all drugs when my first child was born.

I was trying to make a point about a bigger issue, but that issue won't be talked about on here. It's much easier for some folks [not you] to try and paint an unflattering picture of posters they don't like.

With all of that said, I am sincerely sorry if my posts upset you. I can understand why they would upset you. I'm sorry for triggering those feelings. I wish I could take it back, but I can't. I'm sorry.

Thank you 40, GM and Clem for your kind comments.

Vers, thank you... we're good!

She sure is....but I’m 99% positive that’s Adrianne Haslet who lost her leg in the Boston Marathon bombing.