Posted on 01/31/2006 12:06:31 PM PST by MRMEAN
JONESBORO, Ark. (AP) -- Drug detection as easy as taking a swipe of someone's sweat could someday be in the hands of law enforcement, thanks to research conducted at the Arkansas Biosciences Institute at Arkansas State University.
''The hardest problems in science are often solved with just one question,'' said Robyn Hannigan, associate professor of chemistry and physics at ASU.
During testing of tobacco smoke, fellow researcher Roger Buchanan asked Hannigan to develop a test that would allow him to measure the amount of nicotine absorbed by lab rats. He wanted a test that was a lot faster than traditional tests that required a blood sample to be analyzed.
Hannigan and her students developed a swipe test to allow a drop of saliva or sweat to be measured.
''Then we thought, 'Hey, if you can do this for a drug like nicotine, why not cannabis or methamphetamine?' It turns out you can,'' Hannigan said.
Hannigan patented the process and is now working to develop it into a working model for human testing. She and her company, Hyphenated Solutions Inc., have begun pursuing Federal Drug Administration approval for the technique and grants from the National Institutes of Health.
''The possibility is one day a police officer, school official or doctor will check for the presence of drugs in minutes instead of hours,'' she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If only it were so easy to test for encroaching tyranny.
I wonder how welcome this will be now that employers are testing for nicotine.
It is, observe: (Now if only we could get our elected leaders to follow this plan :D)
1) Is this a government agency?
1a) If #1 is yes, Explain in 5 words or less why this should be a governmental agency, giving logical, easy-to-follow, non-legalese Constitutional explanations where the government has the authority to create and/or maintain this agency.
2) Would it make more sense for market-forces to control this?
2a) If #2 is No, Explain in 5 words or less why.
3) Is there a hard-coded, non-changeable expiration date on this law or ruling?
3a) If #3 is No, Explain in 5 words or less why.
4) Did this pass through the legislature with a super-majority?
4a) If #4 is No, Explain in 5 words or less why.
:)
So a drug is in your system for a few days. You take a Valium two days ago before bed, then 2 days later you get pulled over and Valium shows up in your system. Do you get a DWI?
Not if you have a prescription for Valium.
It depends.
Do they need revenue?
My father had a heart attack and was acting spacey and sweating profusely. Got tapped off the road by policy and was taken to the emergency room and found his enzymes showed a heart attack. He takes Valiums every night for anxiety from heart problems (had two prior heart attacks), so his blood work showed Valium in his system (yes, prescribed). He has a DUI on his record. License suspended for six months, even had to do community service. At least the judge was "KIND" enough to not require him to spend the three days in jail.
The libertarian in me was fuming, but what can you do?
Having a prescription doesn't make one any less impaired when it comes to being behind the wheel.
I'd want to see a test better than "the occifer thinks he's intoxicated." Plus, did the cardiologist get called to testify? (Mega$$$)
Like General Ripper feared - the commies want our precious bodily fluids.
That's not a good story. However, it sounds like your dad was having real problems. Given his history, it might have been better if he weren't driving.
If everyone on the road who is taking a benzodiazapine was taken off the road, the freeways would be wide open all the time.
>>>I'd want to see a test better than "the occifer thinks he's intoxicated." Plus, did the cardiologist get called to testify? (Mega$$$)>>>
No, but the hospital records submitted showed it.
>Having a prescription doesn't make one any less impaired when it comes to being behind the wheel.>
Of course not, but are you still intoxicated 26 hours later?
>>>That's not a good story. However, it sounds like your dad was having real problems. Given his history, it might have been better if he weren't driving. >>>
So are you proposing everyone who has had a heart attacks or heart problems not be allowed to drive? Noone can know when they are going to have a heart attack and things happen. Not that it couldn't have ended much worse, but noone can foretell the future.
I mean, the expert would be needed to show a connection between the heart attack and the "intoxication."
"So are you proposing everyone who has had a heart attacks or heart problems not be allowed to drive?"
Pretty much. If I had had a heart attack, and was likely to have another, I'd stop driving. But, that's just me. I'd never want to cause problems for anyone else due to my own health situation.
>>>Pretty much. If I had had a heart attack, and was likely to have another, I'd stop driving. But, that's just me. I'd never want to cause problems for anyone else due to my own health situation.>>>
Somehow I doubt you.
Don't. I'm serious. I take all that driving safety stuff really seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.