It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Tech Firm Claims Creation of Legitimite Pot Breathalyzer

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 05:42 PM
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If anything smoking pot makes you a more conservative, cautious driver in my experience. It's nowhere near the same thing as drink driving.

Where I live, we have a swab test for pot. Thankfully I've never been pulled over and swabbed. I've heard people carry antacids in their car and quickly chew one to skew the test.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 05:55 PM

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: FamCore

None of those would hold up in court as actual "evidence" - "correlation isn't necessarily causation" is an easy legal defense against all of those.

A breathalyzer that detects the metabolites of THC is legit evidence that trumps all of those

Tech Firm Claims Creation of Legitimite Pot Breathalyzer

Pretty sure you don't need one of those to know when someone is smoking...certain hings are good giveaways.

Red Eyes

Cotton Mouth

And only driving 20 in a 40 mph zone.

And let's not forget the smell.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 05:56 PM
a reply to: zenartist

I say if you are a smoker (and it's legal), you have to do a separate "high test" to test your driving ability stoned - then you get a rating. Thus - making your highness a non-factor (if you are actually a good driver, and your theory is correct

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 05:57 PM
Oh poo.

Looks like I'm gonna have to quit driving.

How long before these things are used by employers to test workers? Looks like I'll be out of a job if so.

I propose we use them on police officers and politicians first - I hear some are just as partial to the green stuff as they are to the white.
edit on 7-12-2015 by doobydoll because: typo

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:25 PM
a reply to: FamCore

Indeed OP this should be interesting. It will be almost impossible to determine how inebriated someone is from this. THC is oil based and stays in the system for up to 30 days. The Colorado law says 5 nano-grams per ml of blood is over the limit. The daily smoker sits at around 10 nano-grams when not inebriated or smoking.

On a similar note...
The tech industry is coming up with some crazy stuff right now for the cannabis industry and the enforcement of regulations.
Like this device.

The Nasal Ranger turns anyone into a bloodhound.
Is used to enforce the regulation that a "grow"(pot warehouse) can't producing to much of a cannabis odor. In reality these "grows" are just big oxygen scrubbers in the middle of a polluted metropolitan area. Required to have this elaborate expensive venting system as not to offend anyone.
Would rather smell raw growing cannabis any day to the diesel truck next to me in traffic or the purina dog food plant...

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:27 PM
a reply to: boncho

They want to enforce a zero tolerance it seems.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:35 PM
body weight has got to have something to do with it and maybe liver and kidney functions. pupils and blood vessels in the eyes. so maybe breath and eye scans?

a reply to: FamCore

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:45 PM
I choose to not drive while under the influence. it ruins the experience for me and makes me paranoid and therefore hyper-corrective and unable to experience natural flow while driving as I do when sober. thing is you can be sober with weed in a couple hours unlike alcohol but I bet they won't address that and just go with the ignorant, reefer madness bull#. what they need to do is determine a baseline of impairment and approach this in a rational, objective way. the laws should be based on facts not prejudiced stereotypes.

a reply to: lifecitizen

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 02:32 PM
a reply to: Butterfinger

A long time user can easily pass them, plus you can smoke a little and get a head change, but also be perfectly fine for higher order motor/thinking skills.

That's kind of the point though. If someone has a high tolerance to something and small amounts or even amounts in their system which makes them 'legally' impaired, but they aren't, the law isn't really protecting or helping in this case. Where in the exact same scenario, someone could be under the influence of drugs/chemicals not being tested for, and be way beyond the acceptable limits of 'impairment'.

Now, Im not saying people should be allowed to run around drunk and stoned so long as they can handle it, not at all. Only that a test that judges actual impairment is more fitting then something just trying to get a baseline number to prosecute someone.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in