11 ms·

As a full supporter of cannabis legalization, I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cann

by JPKab 10y ago

As a full supporter of cannabis legalization, I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis. Notice that I'm focusing on whether or not they are impaired, as opposed to the amount in their bloodstream. The point being that people that use cannabis regularly for medical reasons don't seem to be impaired by it at all, while newer or more occasional users are certainly impaired. It would be fascinating to see what kind of technologies could be used to achieve this that folks on HN are aware of.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
I'd assume regular medical users have gotten very used to the effects of pot, as opposed to noobs.
amelius 10y ago
> a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired I'm not sure if that would work in practice. As mentioned, alcohol makes someone more confident, or more likely to do stupid things. The test should incorporate that. From another point of view, the alcohol tricks you into thinking your reflexes are still normal, while they are not. And this is the dangerous part, not the fact that your reflexes are somewhat lower (and perhaps comparable to an old lady who is still perfectly capable to drive safely).
- eikenberry 10y ago
  Why did you switch to alcohol when the parent was talking cannabis. They are very different drugs with very different physiological and psychological effects.
- sudojudo 10y ago
  >alcohol makes someone more confident, or more likely to do stupid things. Reminds me of the "say the alphabet backwards" challenge that cops often present in sobriety tests. Drunk: ZYX... ZYXW... wait-wait... okay, ZYXTW, ummm... Sober: I can't do that. Stoned: Oh whaaat? No way, man. I can't even do that sober - shit, I mean...
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    Yeah, I've heard that it's supposed to be a gotcha, and the "actual" test is that only drunk people will attempt it, while sober people will, allegedly, refuse to try. Because refusing to obey a police officer who's considering arresting you is such a sober decision.
    - zzz157 10y ago
      But I know my alphabet backwards. If sober, and I state it perfectly, will they think I'm drunk?
  - duderific 10y ago
    Deep in my memory banks I have the recollection of a song "Backwards Alphabet", maybe it was on Sesame Street or something, that would allow you to "sing" the alphabet backwards without actually having to think about it; the melody acts as a mnemonic device to go along with the "lyrics" which are just the alphabet backwards. I wonder how a cop would react if you started singing the alphabet backwards.
    - civilian 10y ago
      I don't know about you, buy my drunken singing is noticeably different than my sober singing.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      The request is usually accompanied by "without singing" because they definitely know this trick. In fact I think it's mostly not a test they use, or if it is it's to see how the person handles it, not that they can actually do it.
thaumasiotes 10y ago
How would you differentiate between someone with good reflexes who is currently impaired by cannabis, and someone with bad reflexes who isn't? As a followup question, what would be the point of making that distinction?
- petra 10y ago
  >> As a followup question, what would be the point of making that distinction? People with better reflexes might drive less conservatively due to their reflexes, and may continue to do so even while impaired.
jlcx 10y ago
Impairment should be the focus, rather than the amount of any substance in anybody's bloodstream. Why not a general test of perception and reaction time?
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  How do you figure out what is normal for that person, though? Or what is normal to society? How do we set up a test that is fair to most folks? Can we rely on police training to be able to make accomidations (quickly) for those that are disabled, etc?
  - err4nt 10y ago
    It's not per-person. There's ONE standard for driving. If for any reason (weakness, blindness, lack of reflexes, impairment, age, etc) you can't reach that bar, then in reality you can't safely drive and so you shouldn't. It really doesn't matter the age, ability, or whatever - as long as a person CAN reach the minimum requirements to drive on the road, they should be allowed to chose to do so. I don't see a need to discriminate by any means other than performance.
    - mjevans 10y ago
      Is there a standard? What standards body has decided it and where can I see it's tests enumerated? Or do you mean the quick and dirty 'field sobriety tests' that many police offers use? I'm not aware of those being actual standards or tests so much as quick and dirty tools to justify the effort of /actual/ standards tests (BTW, I recall hearing that you should always demand the blood test over the breath tests).
      - _acme 10y ago
        I think blood alcohol content counts as an objective standard.
        mjevans 10y ago
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Right now, there is none. Obviously the measurable amount isn't reliable - but that has been known to general users for years. And so much of it is personal - a person going out on the weekend and smoking a lot (much like drinking most weekends or occasionally) is going to be really impaired. A regular smoker, who keeps a slight buzz and gets used to it would have very little effect most times. People around them don't have a clue. I honestly think the best solution would be to regulate the current traffic laws better - including things such as speed limits, yeilding to pedestrians, keeping distance ahead of you (don't know if that is a law) and other things. Not only is this going to help catch people too impaired to be driving, but folks that are simply not paying attention to the road and trying to multi-task while driving.
- bostonpete 10y ago
  > And so much of it is personal This is true of drunk driving too. I don't think that means we just shouldn't try to impose any restrictions...
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    That is true, but like the article stated, there is much more relation and science affirming the connection between BAC and an impaired ability to drive than there is due to pot. And I'm sure that there are plenty of people that simply don't get caught, and more that would otherwise not get caught if it weren't for checkpoints. If we don't have the science, technology, nor a fair way to test, I'm not sure how making pot-specific laws is going to help do anything other than make people feel like something has been done. At least with better controls and better general laws, it makes everyone safer. People that can't drive accordingly, regardless of any drug, probably shouldn't be driving at all.
- jerkstate 10y ago
  Police have been doing field sobriety tests that don't rely on chemical detection for a very, very long time. Examples: walk a straight line, follow the light with your eyes, close your eyes and tell me when 30 seconds have passed, stand on one leg, and so on.
dangerlibrary 10y ago
I could see something like an augmented reality setup for a driver where fake pedestrians wander into the road ahead of you and if you don't slow down in time you are warned / flagged as impaired / ignition shuts down. Passes the specificity test, for sure - which something like a reflex test to turn the ignition switch does not. The problem is that it's way too invasive for people to sign up for it voluntarily - not to mention you'd cause a bunch of sudden stops for no reason and maybe create more accidents than you prevent.
odonnellryan 10y ago
The real solution is to get people off the road in general.
kafkaesq 10y ago
I'm a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis. Wow. So you're also a big supporter of the massive, real-time surveillance infrastructure required to make this possible, then. Don't think for a minute that those devices (which will inevitably be required in all human-driven cars... for as long as humans are allowed to drive cars, that is) won't be reporting those findings to insurance companies and of course, to one's friendly local police department -- and by extension, all police departments nationwide -- once in place.
- striking 10y ago
  I think parent commenter meant a device that can check the impairment of a person's reflexes, physically, when asked. Like a breathalyzer for reflexes.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    You're right; somehow I was reflexively thinking that such a device would have to be be mandatory. But the way you phrase it, it's clear that that wasn't what was being proposed.
metaphorm 10y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. What is a credible test of impairment that can be administered automatically, remotely, anonymously, and with a high enough degree of accuracy and reliability (mitigation of false positives and false negatives), that we could feel ok about legislating around it?
gnaritas 10y ago
> I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis. We simply don't need that; this presume driving while high is a problem that needs solving and it quite simply isn't. There's no evidence to justify treating pot special like we do alcohol and specifically testing for it.
ams6110 10y ago
Cops can tell if you're stoned. It's not that difficult. It's not like they never see it.
- paloaltokid 10y ago
  Having driven through multiple DUI checkpoints while stoned I can attest that this is not true.
- spraak 10y ago
  Yeah, but the poster above us talking about the degree to which someone is stoned, not just true/false. Relying purely on human judgement is not a good idea for something like that. Especially considering all of the abuses police commit already. If all they need to do is judge you're too stoned without any quantifying test, that's not good.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    IIRC, in most jurisdictions, that's all they need to do with alcohol to arrest. Blood/breath results are additional evidence which will aid with conviction, since there is an prima facie legal limit as well as a prohibition on driving while impaired do to alcohol regardless of BAC, but most jurisdictions also prohibit driving while impaired with any substance, whether or not that substance is one for which a prima facie limit has been established.

by JPKab 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago

I'd assume regular medical users have gotten very used to the effects of pot, as opposed to noobs.

amelius 10y ago

> a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired I'm not sure if that would work in practice. As mentioned, alcohol makes someone more confident, or more likely to do stupid things. The test should incorporate that. From another point of view, the alcohol tricks you into thinking your reflexes are still normal, while they are not. And this is the dangerous part, not the fact that your reflexes are somewhat lower (and perhaps comparable to an old lady who is still perfectly capable to drive safely).

eikenberry 10y ago
Why did you switch to alcohol when the parent was talking cannabis. They are very different drugs with very different physiological and psychological effects.
sudojudo 10y ago
>alcohol makes someone more confident, or more likely to do stupid things. Reminds me of the "say the alphabet backwards" challenge that cops often present in sobriety tests. Drunk: ZYX... ZYXW... wait-wait... okay, ZYXTW, ummm... Sober: I can't do that. Stoned: Oh whaaat? No way, man. I can't even do that sober - shit, I mean...
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Yeah, I've heard that it's supposed to be a gotcha, and the "actual" test is that only drunk people will attempt it, while sober people will, allegedly, refuse to try. Because refusing to obey a police officer who's considering arresting you is such a sober decision.
  - zzz157 10y ago
    But I know my alphabet backwards. If sober, and I state it perfectly, will they think I'm drunk?
- duderific 10y ago
  Deep in my memory banks I have the recollection of a song "Backwards Alphabet", maybe it was on Sesame Street or something, that would allow you to "sing" the alphabet backwards without actually having to think about it; the melody acts as a mnemonic device to go along with the "lyrics" which are just the alphabet backwards. I wonder how a cop would react if you started singing the alphabet backwards.
  - civilian 10y ago
    I don't know about you, buy my drunken singing is noticeably different than my sober singing.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    The request is usually accompanied by "without singing" because they definitely know this trick. In fact I think it's mostly not a test they use, or if it is it's to see how the person handles it, not that they can actually do it.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

How would you differentiate between someone with good reflexes who is currently impaired by cannabis, and someone with bad reflexes who isn't? As a followup question, what would be the point of making that distinction?

petra 10y ago
>> As a followup question, what would be the point of making that distinction? People with better reflexes might drive less conservatively due to their reflexes, and may continue to do so even while impaired.

jlcx 10y ago

Impairment should be the focus, rather than the amount of any substance in anybody's bloodstream. Why not a general test of perception and reaction time?

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
How do you figure out what is normal for that person, though? Or what is normal to society? How do we set up a test that is fair to most folks? Can we rely on police training to be able to make accomidations (quickly) for those that are disabled, etc?
- err4nt 10y ago
  It's not per-person. There's ONE standard for driving. If for any reason (weakness, blindness, lack of reflexes, impairment, age, etc) you can't reach that bar, then in reality you can't safely drive and so you shouldn't. It really doesn't matter the age, ability, or whatever - as long as a person CAN reach the minimum requirements to drive on the road, they should be allowed to chose to do so. I don't see a need to discriminate by any means other than performance.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    Is there a standard? What standards body has decided it and where can I see it's tests enumerated? Or do you mean the quick and dirty 'field sobriety tests' that many police offers use? I'm not aware of those being actual standards or tests so much as quick and dirty tools to justify the effort of /actual/ standards tests (BTW, I recall hearing that you should always demand the blood test over the breath tests).
    - _acme 10y ago
      I think blood alcohol content counts as an objective standard.
      - mjevans 10y ago

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

Right now, there is none. Obviously the measurable amount isn't reliable - but that has been known to general users for years. And so much of it is personal - a person going out on the weekend and smoking a lot (much like drinking most weekends or occasionally) is going to be really impaired. A regular smoker, who keeps a slight buzz and gets used to it would have very little effect most times. People around them don't have a clue. I honestly think the best solution would be to regulate the current traffic laws better - including things such as speed limits, yeilding to pedestrians, keeping distance ahead of you (don't know if that is a law) and other things. Not only is this going to help catch people too impaired to be driving, but folks that are simply not paying attention to the road and trying to multi-task while driving.

bostonpete 10y ago
> And so much of it is personal This is true of drunk driving too. I don't think that means we just shouldn't try to impose any restrictions...
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  That is true, but like the article stated, there is much more relation and science affirming the connection between BAC and an impaired ability to drive than there is due to pot. And I'm sure that there are plenty of people that simply don't get caught, and more that would otherwise not get caught if it weren't for checkpoints. If we don't have the science, technology, nor a fair way to test, I'm not sure how making pot-specific laws is going to help do anything other than make people feel like something has been done. At least with better controls and better general laws, it makes everyone safer. People that can't drive accordingly, regardless of any drug, probably shouldn't be driving at all.
jerkstate 10y ago
Police have been doing field sobriety tests that don't rely on chemical detection for a very, very long time. Examples: walk a straight line, follow the light with your eyes, close your eyes and tell me when 30 seconds have passed, stand on one leg, and so on.

dangerlibrary 10y ago

I could see something like an augmented reality setup for a driver where fake pedestrians wander into the road ahead of you and if you don't slow down in time you are warned / flagged as impaired / ignition shuts down. Passes the specificity test, for sure - which something like a reflex test to turn the ignition switch does not. The problem is that it's way too invasive for people to sign up for it voluntarily - not to mention you'd cause a bunch of sudden stops for no reason and maybe create more accidents than you prevent.

odonnellryan 10y ago

The real solution is to get people off the road in general.

kafkaesq 10y ago

I'm a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis. Wow. So you're also a big supporter of the massive, real-time surveillance infrastructure required to make this possible, then. Don't think for a minute that those devices (which will inevitably be required in all human-driven cars... for as long as humans are allowed to drive cars, that is) won't be reporting those findings to insurance companies and of course, to one's friendly local police department -- and by extension, all police departments nationwide -- once in place.

striking 10y ago
I think parent commenter meant a device that can check the impairment of a person's reflexes, physically, when asked. Like a breathalyzer for reflexes.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  You're right; somehow I was reflexively thinking that such a device would have to be be mandatory. But the way you phrase it, it's clear that that wasn't what was being proposed.

metaphorm 10y ago

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. What is a credible test of impairment that can be administered automatically, remotely, anonymously, and with a high enough degree of accuracy and reliability (mitigation of false positives and false negatives), that we could feel ok about legislating around it?

gnaritas 10y ago

> I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis. We simply don't need that; this presume driving while high is a problem that needs solving and it quite simply isn't. There's no evidence to justify treating pot special like we do alcohol and specifically testing for it.

ams6110 10y ago

Cops can tell if you're stoned. It's not that difficult. It's not like they never see it.

paloaltokid 10y ago
Having driven through multiple DUI checkpoints while stoned I can attest that this is not true.
spraak 10y ago
Yeah, but the poster above us talking about the degree to which someone is stoned, not just true/false. Relying purely on human judgement is not a good idea for something like that. Especially considering all of the abuses police commit already. If all they need to do is judge you're too stoned without any quantifying test, that's not good.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  IIRC, in most jurisdictions, that's all they need to do with alcohol to arrest. Blood/breath results are additional evidence which will aid with conviction, since there is an prima facie legal limit as well as a prohibition on driving while impaired do to alcohol regardless of BAC, but most jurisdictions also prohibit driving while impaired with any substance, whether or not that substance is one for which a prima facie limit has been established.