5 ms·

> What’s keeping you in check? It's going to be fairly easy to test this. You take one group of people who haven't smoked in the last few hours and you test th

> What’s keeping you in check? It's going to be fairly easy to test this. You take one group of people who haven't smoked in the last few hours and you test them. Make sure it doesn't go off. You take another group who have smoked (I'm sure plenty of college students would be happy to sign up for this trial) and you test them, make sure it does go off. It's pretty simple. It's a machine with an empirical number, so you don't even have to do this double blind. And if it doesn't give good results? It won't hold up in court. Every lawyer defending someone with a positive result (whether false positive or true positive) will argue that the device isn't accurate and the case gets tossed (or even the ability to use these as evidence). If it doesn't hold up in court, police really won't have much incentive to use these anyway.

wolco 7y ago
It is not that simple. Within the control group of non-smokers you need people who smoked yesterday or 12 hours before to determine if the testing is successful. But even that is too simplist. You need to activity give a specific dose to a group with similiar profiles. You need to test with different profile groups. Remember we are testing currently high not has been high.
- wysifnwyg 7y ago
  The basic functionality of a breathalyzer is to take a given volume of an exhale and measure the concentration of a given particle as an indicator of intoxication. So long as an individual's results are greater than or equal to 0.08 then it becomes an unacceptable risk and they are considered intoxicated. If this process is going to test in a similar way, there is no need to test specific doses or profiles because the concentration isn't variable, it's a static amount. With alcohol, we don't consider weight, or what they had to drink, or how long they've drank so why should this be any different? All that needs to be defined is what the law considers a concentration which should represent a level where the risk reaches an unacceptable percentage.
  - chadash 7y ago
    I think maybe you misunderstood @wolco's point? I think what they are saying is that, for example, you might do all of your testing on college age males and find that it doesn't give any false positives for people who smoked yesterday but not today. But you still need to test it on 60 year old women to make sure it doesn't give false positives there. In other words, you need to test it for varying lengths of time and also to make sure that it has consistently acceptable results by race, sex, weight, age, etc.
    - wysifnwyg 7y ago
      If that is indeed what they're saying, my point still stands. The blood alcohol limit has no variations for age, sex, gender, race, weight, time since last usage, or any other factor. It just goes by concentration. My point still stands. What the law considers the concentration which indicates intoxication is a metric based on what is considered an acceptable level of risk.
    - NewsAware 7y ago
      Additionally you need to test it doesn't trigger a positive when someone had a cinnamon flavored mint before. Or a citrus one. Or ate a mushroom sandwich. Or has diabetes..etc etc
vngzs 7y ago
Even alcohol breathalyzers are regularly miscalibrated or defective and found to produce false positives. Legal pressure from manufacturers keeps this quiet. https://www.zdnet.com/article/draeger-breathalyzer-breath-test-convictions/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/draeger-breathalyzer-breath-te...
- ehnto 7y ago
  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 everyone else.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    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)
    - rxhernandez 7y ago
      That's utterly disgusting that the state can invade your body and take blood out with a warrant.
      - edoceo 7y ago
        You agree to these things when getting a license. It's like the EULA we never read.
      - 420codebro 7y ago
        No it isn't. You are just hyper-sensitive. There are times when it is necessary. The drunk driver who plowed into a family of 4 and killed them all? Fuck yeah I'm getting his blood - he needs to go to prison.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

wolco 7y ago

It is not that simple. Within the control group of non-smokers you need people who smoked yesterday or 12 hours before to determine if the testing is successful. But even that is too simplist. You need to activity give a specific dose to a group with similiar profiles. You need to test with different profile groups. Remember we are testing currently high not has been high.

wysifnwyg 7y ago
The basic functionality of a breathalyzer is to take a given volume of an exhale and measure the concentration of a given particle as an indicator of intoxication. So long as an individual's results are greater than or equal to 0.08 then it becomes an unacceptable risk and they are considered intoxicated. If this process is going to test in a similar way, there is no need to test specific doses or profiles because the concentration isn't variable, it's a static amount. With alcohol, we don't consider weight, or what they had to drink, or how long they've drank so why should this be any different? All that needs to be defined is what the law considers a concentration which should represent a level where the risk reaches an unacceptable percentage.
- chadash 7y ago
  I think maybe you misunderstood @wolco's point? I think what they are saying is that, for example, you might do all of your testing on college age males and find that it doesn't give any false positives for people who smoked yesterday but not today. But you still need to test it on 60 year old women to make sure it doesn't give false positives there. In other words, you need to test it for varying lengths of time and also to make sure that it has consistently acceptable results by race, sex, weight, age, etc.
  - wysifnwyg 7y ago
    If that is indeed what they're saying, my point still stands. The blood alcohol limit has no variations for age, sex, gender, race, weight, time since last usage, or any other factor. It just goes by concentration. My point still stands. What the law considers the concentration which indicates intoxication is a metric based on what is considered an acceptable level of risk.
  - NewsAware 7y ago
    Additionally you need to test it doesn't trigger a positive when someone had a cinnamon flavored mint before. Or a citrus one. Or ate a mushroom sandwich. Or has diabetes..etc etc

vngzs 7y ago

Even alcohol breathalyzers are regularly miscalibrated or defective and found to produce false positives. Legal pressure from manufacturers keeps this quiet. https://www.zdnet.com/article/draeger-breathalyzer-breath-test-convictions/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/draeger-breathalyzer-breath-te...

ehnto 7y ago
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 everyone else.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  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)
  - rxhernandez 7y ago
    That's utterly disgusting that the state can invade your body and take blood out with a warrant.
    - edoceo 7y ago
      You agree to these things when getting a license. It's like the EULA we never read.
    - 420codebro 7y ago
      No it isn't. You are just hyper-sensitive. There are times when it is necessary. The drunk driver who plowed into a family of 4 and killed them all? Fuck yeah I'm getting his blood - he needs to go to prison.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]