3 ms·

Just the fact that you will be profiting off of this perceived issue, means you have some interest in the root causes of impaired driving remaining unsolved. Re

Just the fact that you will be profiting off of this perceived issue, means you have some interest in the root causes of impaired driving remaining unsolved. Reading statements like this just tells me you have dollar signs in your eyes: > we're imagining a world where there are one of our devices in every police car in North America Nowhere did I see a sentiment akin to this: > we're imagining a world where people act more responsibly, driving deaths are reduced, etc I think it would go a long way towards establishing more credibility and goodwill on your part if you pledged a not-insignificant % of revenue (not just profit) towards education, mental health and/or civil rights efforts. At the end of the day, it is all citizens' tax dollars that will be used to pay you, so you should do the right thing and make those dollars work for them. You should show that you're actually using this as a step towards eradicating the root cause, not just profiting off of the perceived problem. Probably the best way for something like this to show it has helped society is if it ultimately obviates its own raison d'être, because the problem has been solved and thus the need for your palliative has vanished. It's like a doctor prescribing opiates vs solving the underlying issue of a patient's pain, or psychiatric patients hooked on antidepressants. I'm sure there were plenty of execs dreaming of every pharmacy stocked with Oxy. These things may be helpful, but only as a step towards solving the underlying issue. When they become the end goal, people get hurt.

dahfizz 7y ago
I think comments like this are incredibly harmful. There is a strong need for this device, and this person is working to fill the need. To also hoist the responsibility of fixing society's fundamental issues and ask him/her to give up the revenue (not just profit) that they earns is absurd. I would say that this person is doing more than their fair share.
- sixstringtheory 7y ago
  > There is a strong need for this device Show me. "Many people are saying" is not evidence, it's argumentum ad populum. > doing more than their fair share Your opinion, while noted, is disagreeable to me.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    What needs to be shown? It is well known that cannabis use while driving is both very common and very dangerous[1]. Or are you trying to argue that breathalyzers are not needed to combat this problem? I would argue that the absence of these devices has caused a great deal of damage to the innocent while making it difficult to detect and punish the guilty[2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836260/ [2] https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5914a293e4b030d4f1f0f5ed https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5914a293e4b030d4f1f0f5ed
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Doing more than their fair share of what? It looks like they recognized an issue facing society and chose to exploit the problem for money rather than actually help fix the it. The need for this device is coming from the police-industrial complex, not society at large. The war on drugs has been incredibly damaging in the U.S., and I absolutely do not want the police to have even more tools to wage it.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    > The war on drugs has been incredibly damaging in the U.S., and I absolutely do not want the police to have even more tools to wage it. I absolutely agree. I think having an easy way to test for sobriety will pave the way for legalization. It makes legalization much more palatable politically. > The need for this device is coming from the police-industrial complex, not society at large. I have a couple of friends who live in a state with recreational weed. They work on safety critical stuff (think construction). Because of this, they get random drug tested because being impaired can mean deaths. This also means that, even though weed is perfectly legal, they cannot use it because it is impossible for their employer to test sobriety at the job site. They desperately wish a weed breathalyzer was real. You'll test positive in a drug test weeks after smoking. We need a way to test for sobriety. I don't understand how that can possibly be controversial.
- dfsegoat 7y ago
  I initially wanted to argue the "Strong need for this device" premise that you layed out, because last I checked the dose-response research re: thc and driving impairment hadn't really been done. However when I did the research on PubMed, there are some systematic reviews which indicate things like the following [1]: "Nearly two thirds of US trauma center admissions are due to motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), with almost 60% of such patients testing positive for drugs or alcohol." They conclude with: "Consuming cannabis before driving, with or without alcohol, is a common occurrence that produces substantial morbidity and mortality on the roadway. Research is needed to further define cannabis’ effects on driving performance and to provide the scientific basis for laws to improve road safety." [1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836260/
hooande 7y ago
do the companies who currently make alcohol breathalyzers donate profits to charity? and do you question their motives as well?
- sixstringtheory 7y ago
  Ethics obviates the answers to these questions. It doesn't matter what other people do.

dahfizz 7y ago

I think comments like this are incredibly harmful. There is a strong need for this device, and this person is working to fill the need. To also hoist the responsibility of fixing society's fundamental issues and ask him/her to give up the revenue (not just profit) that they earns is absurd. I would say that this person is doing more than their fair share.

sixstringtheory 7y ago
> There is a strong need for this device Show me. "Many people are saying" is not evidence, it's argumentum ad populum. > doing more than their fair share Your opinion, while noted, is disagreeable to me.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  What needs to be shown? It is well known that cannabis use while driving is both very common and very dangerous[1]. Or are you trying to argue that breathalyzers are not needed to combat this problem? I would argue that the absence of these devices has caused a great deal of damage to the innocent while making it difficult to detect and punish the guilty[2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836260/ [2] https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5914a293e4b030d4f1f0f5ed https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5914a293e4b030d4f1f0f5ed
jakelazaroff 7y ago
Doing more than their fair share of what? It looks like they recognized an issue facing society and chose to exploit the problem for money rather than actually help fix the it. The need for this device is coming from the police-industrial complex, not society at large. The war on drugs has been incredibly damaging in the U.S., and I absolutely do not want the police to have even more tools to wage it.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  > The war on drugs has been incredibly damaging in the U.S., and I absolutely do not want the police to have even more tools to wage it. I absolutely agree. I think having an easy way to test for sobriety will pave the way for legalization. It makes legalization much more palatable politically. > The need for this device is coming from the police-industrial complex, not society at large. I have a couple of friends who live in a state with recreational weed. They work on safety critical stuff (think construction). Because of this, they get random drug tested because being impaired can mean deaths. This also means that, even though weed is perfectly legal, they cannot use it because it is impossible for their employer to test sobriety at the job site. They desperately wish a weed breathalyzer was real. You'll test positive in a drug test weeks after smoking. We need a way to test for sobriety. I don't understand how that can possibly be controversial.
dfsegoat 7y ago
I initially wanted to argue the "Strong need for this device" premise that you layed out, because last I checked the dose-response research re: thc and driving impairment hadn't really been done. However when I did the research on PubMed, there are some systematic reviews which indicate things like the following [1]: "Nearly two thirds of US trauma center admissions are due to motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), with almost 60% of such patients testing positive for drugs or alcohol." They conclude with: "Consuming cannabis before driving, with or without alcohol, is a common occurrence that produces substantial morbidity and mortality on the roadway. Research is needed to further define cannabis’ effects on driving performance and to provide the scientific basis for laws to improve road safety." [1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836260/

hooande 7y ago

do the companies who currently make alcohol breathalyzers donate profits to charity? and do you question their motives as well?

sixstringtheory 7y ago
Ethics obviates the answers to these questions. It doesn't matter what other people do.