Hey, Check Out These Meaningless Statistics!

[Jim Finnel]

According to a recent national survey, 11 percent of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for illicit drugs - five times as many as were under the influence of alcohol.

It's just perfect nonsense of the exact variety the drug czar's office specializes in. Testing positive for drugs just means the person has drugs in their system (which could have been ingested days or even weeks before getting behind the wheel). By contrast, those who were "under the influence of alcohol" were over the legal limit at the time they were driving. The drug czar is literally comparing people who may have smoked marijuana last week to people who are drunk right now. It's insane.

And, as is often the case when drug warriors wildly misinterpret scientific data, the report itself specifically warns against drawing exactly the types of conclusions claimed by the drug czar:

"The reader is cautioned that drug presence does not necessarily imply impairment. For many drug types, drug presence can be detected long after any impairment that might affect driving has passed. For example, traces of marijuana can be detected in blood samples several weeks after chronic users stop ingestion. Also, whereas the impairment effects for various concentration levels of alcohol is well understood, little evidence is available to link concentrations of other drug types to driver performance."

Is that confusing to anyone? It really shouldn’t be. But, unfortunately for us all, it is the drug czar's job not to understand or acknowledge basic facts like these. Once one comes to understand that our drug policies are routinely based on complete nonsense, it ceases to be a mystery why we achieve such dismal results.



News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: StoptheDrugWar.org
Copyright: 2008 StoptheDrugWar.org
Contact: drcnet@drcnet.org
Website: Hey, Check Out These Meaningless Statistics! | Stop the Drug War (DRCNet)

 

[BWC BayArea]

That is crazy trying to compare an obviously drunk driver to a person with drugs in their system. I can understand a field sobriety test, but blood? I doubt they make u give blood. Don't they give u the option (at least in California) to either piss or give blood if u refuse the breathalizer?

 

[Keith Lake]

There's a new saliva test in development by Philips.

If it works it's the beginning of the end of the descriminatory policies for MJ driving.

The test is calibrated for THC, not THC-COOH (the inactive metabolite).

This would put MJ on par with Alcohol (test-wise). If you're actively under the influnce the test reveals it, but no more of that 30 days later you're still coming up dirty.

One can only hope...

 

[Jim Finnel]

i believe this is what your refering to:


Source: Technology Review
Author: Alexander Gelfand
Copyright: 2009 Technology Review
Contact: Technology Review: Corporate: Contact Us
Website: Technology Review: Device Offers a Roadside Dope Test
NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking



Device Offers a Roadside Dope Test
By Alexander Gelfand

Later this year, Philips will introduce a handheld electronic device that uses magnetic nanoparticles to screen for five major recreational drugs.

The device is intended for roadside use by law enforcement agencies and includes a disposable plastic cartridge and a handheld analyzer. The cartridge has two components: a sample collector for gathering saliva and a measurement chamber containing magnetic nanoparticles. The particles are coated with ligands that bind to one of five different drug groups: coc*aine, her*oin, cannabis, amphe*tamine, and metham*phetamine.

Philips began investigating the possibility of building a magnetic biodetector in 2001, two years after a team of researchers at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, first used magnetic sensors similar to those employed in hard drives to sniff out certain biowarfare agents. The NRL scientists labeled biological molecules designed to bind to target agents with magnetic microbeads, and then scanned for the tagged targets optically and magnetically. The latter approach used the same giant magnetoresistant (GMR) sensors that read the bits on an iPod's hard drive. They quickly developed a shoebox-sized prototype capable of detecting toxins, including ricin and anthrax.

Philips initially developed both a GMR sensor and an optical one that relies on frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR)--the same phenomenon that underlies fingerprint scanners and multitouch screens. The company decided to go the FTIR route in order to exploit its expertise in building optical sensors for consumer electronics devices, says Jeroen Nieuwenhuis, technical director of Philips Handheld Immunoassays, the division responsible for commercializing the biosensor technology, which goes by the trade name Magnotech.

Moving to an optical detection method also allowed Philips to simplify the test cartridges that the device employs, making them easier to mass-produce, says Nieuwenhuis. With the current FTIR-based system, "we can make simpler cartridges in larger quantities more easily," he adds.

Once the device's sample collector has absorbed enough saliva, it automatically changes color and can then be snapped into the measurement chamber, where the saliva and nanoparticles mix. An electromagnet speeds the nanoparticles to the sensor surface, different portions of which have been pretreated with one of the five target-drug molecules. If traces of any of the five drugs are present in the sample, the nanoparticles will bind to them. If the sample is drug free, the nanoparticles will bind to the drug-coated sensor surface instead.

The orientation of the magnetic field that first drew the nanoparticles to the sensor is then reversed, pulling away any nano-labeled drug molecules that may accidentally have stuck to the sensor surface but leaving legitimately bound ones in place. This last magnetic trick promises to reduce what Larry Kricka, a clinical chemist at the University of Pennsylvania who recently co-authored an article in Clinical Chemistry on the use of magnetism in point-of-care testing, calls "a major restraint in such assays": the unintentional capture of molecular labels on the test surface, a leading cause of both false positives and false negatives. Kricka is not involved with Philips but does serve as a consultant to T2 Biosciences, a Cambridge, MA, firm that promotes a magnetic biosensor based on MRI technology.

During the analysis phase, a beam of light is bounced off the sensor. Any nanoparticles bound to the surface will change its refractive index, thereby altering the intensity of the reflected light and indicating the concentration of drugs in the sample. By immobilizing different drug molecules on different portions on the sensor surface, the analyzer is able to identify the drug traces in question. An electronic screen displays instructions and a simple color-coded readout of the results.

The test takes less than 90 seconds and can detect drugs at concentrations measured in parts-per-billion using a single microliter of saliva. The sensor is capable of even greater sensitivity--it has been used to detect cardiac troponin, a commonly used indicator of heart attack, at concentrations 1,000 times lower.

Philips plans ultimately to enter the healthcare market. It is working on a platform capable of testing blood as well as saliva and is seeking partners that can help expand its testing menu by providing it with additional biomarkers.

Other researchers have built experimental devices to magnetically detect a wide range of biomolecules in minuscule samples of blood or saliva at extremely low concentrations. Often this involves using microfluidic or magnetic forces to quickly shepherd the magnetically labeled molecules through scanners--though a group at the University of Utah has even built a prototype in which a sample-laden stick is swiped across a GMR sensor, like a credit-card through a reader.

The combination of high sensitivity, low sample volumes, miniaturization, speed, and ease of use has raised hopes for a handheld biosensor that could perform sophisticated tests with high accuracy.

"Everyone's trying to get there," says Kricka. "The question is who's going to win?" With Philips set to introduce its drug tester in Europe by the end of the year in partnership with the British diagnostics firm Cozart, the consumer electronics maker appears poised to take the prize.

Quick fix: Philips' drug tester uses a cartridge containing magnetic nanoparticles and a handheld analyzer. Frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) is used to detect five major recreational drugs in 90 seconds.
Credit: Philips Research

 

[Keith Lake]

Newshawk extraordinaire

That's the one.

Imagine, 5 -8 hours after smoking; you'd be ok to drive without risk of DUI because the government tested for metabolites - not the 30, 60, or even 100 days for older heavy tokers - that we deal with now.

Hard to believe I'm rooting for an improved drug test; but I am

 

[stonedrock]

A good defense attorney could aruge that case of inaccuracy. Make that device useless.

 

[tronix]

A good defense attorney could aruge that case of inaccuracy. Make that device useless.

they do that now with breathalyzers, all the time, still doesn't change that the breathalyzer, has helped increase the number of drunk drivers caught and taken off the street for a night.
If perfecting a gadget like this, will help get MJ legalized, because it gives the police a way to regulate it like alcohol, I'm all for it.

(notice, I didn't say it, reduced, drunk drivers, or that it deterred them from doing it again. )

 

[Keith Lake]

The thing I like about it is the alternative it provides to testing for inactive metabolites

5-8 hours positive for active THC
upto 100 days positive for inactive THC-COOH

An easy choice

 

[Joe Curwen]

There's a new saliva test in development by Philips.

If it works it's the beginning of the end of the descriminatory policies for MJ driving.

The test is calibrated for THC, not THC-COOH (the inactive metabolite).

This would put MJ on par with Alcohol (test-wise). If you're actively under the influnce the test reveals it, but no more of that 30 days later you're still coming up dirty.

One can only hope...

Could you provide a citation for this? I haven't been able to find anything on the nuts and bolts of this system.

 

[Keith Lake]

Because saliva tests detect the presence of THC, not marijuana's inactive metabolites, and have a much more narrow window of detection compared to urinalysis, advocates of the technology believe that it is far more likely than urine testing to provide evidence regarding whether someone may be under the influence of cannabis.​

Paul Armantano Jan 2009
Saliva Testing Technology Still Unable To Consistently Detect THC - NORML

 

[Tead]

Referring to the base story... how does that saying go.... "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics....". Really, you could probably generate statistics to show any "fact" you wish. Always dig when stats are used as proof of X. From collection thru evaluation... stats can be very shady creatures. Never trust any of them without verification.

My 2 cents

Cheers