Prohibition Hi-Tech Tool: Just Another Anti-Marijuana Silver Bullet?

Prohibition Hi-Tech Tool: Just Another Anti-Marijuana Silver Bullet?

The ever-informative Technology Review previews new handheld drug detection devices by Philips that can be employed by law enforcement (or potentially one's employer) to detect the presence of banned or illicit substances in the human body, notably cannabis.

​

​

This is indeed bittersweet news as there are two likely policy outcomes. The first is that drivers will be subject to more and more roadside drug tests, however the secondary policy outcomes may provide some benefit for individuals and society: a) Current roadside testing is notoriously inaccurate and subject to challenge, b) Most testing today performed by law enforcement is urine or hair follicle testing (which only measures for inert metabolites from past drug use, not impairment or recent use), a roadside 'sobriety' test that can detect very recent cannabis use (within a few hours) narrows the window of personal liability and criminality, and c) Many law enforcement personnel will agree in debate that the social controls created by legalization and regulation is ideally preferred to the international chaos, potential harm caused to police and ineffectiveness of prohibition–but the one inch of ground few police will yield on is driving while impaired.​

Dozens of law enforcement officials, from patrol officers to heads of state police departments to state Attorneys General, have told me that they can not become converts to reform absent an accurate roadside test like they currently have for alcohol (which is an interesting and awkward way of acknowledging that current roadside drug tests police often give drivers are problematic)​

Maybe, in time, the subset of American society that most vociferously opposes ending cannabis prohibition–the law enforcement community–will come to be sated by the satisfaction that similar to alcohol-impaired drivers, they'll be able to fairly and accurately detect cannabis-impaired drivers.​

After all, ask yourself this: When have you ever seen police or their industry associations (ie, Chiefs of Police Association, Fraternal Order of Police, etc…) publicly lobby in favor of bringing back alcohol prohibition and re-criminalizing alcohol consumption?​

Have these law enforcement trade groups funded and supported public campaigns against impaired or reckless driving? Sure, and all the power to them! But, propagandizing that the producers, sellers and consumers of the very dangerous drug alcohol (or for that matter, pharmaceuticals) be considered common criminals, and a threat to society?​

No. Americans will not (hopefully) ever see police and their trade groups seeking to re-vilify alcohol products.​

What will it take to get the law enforcement community to finally support cannabis law reforms?​

Our bittersweet friend…technology.​

​

Device Offers a Roadside Dope Test
The system uses magnetic nanoparticles to detect traces of cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and methamphetamine.
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: cocaine, heroin, cannabis, amphetamine, and methamphetamine.
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.
Published Tuesday, August 04, 2009 @ Technology Review.

This was published last August and the drug czar has been building up a case for our government to purchase it with his rants about "drugged driving" every time he gets close to a microphone.
​

Karen Tandy,ex-DEA administrator,is an adviser/lobbyist for Motorola and Philips is a subsidiary of Motorola.
More good old boy/girl politics.
Kerli has been building up the case for buying it and asking all the states to adopt drugged driving laws and this is why.
It is going to make Tandy rich.
Our problem is that if marijuana is legalized it will also be a great incentive for employers
to purchase it to make sure people in critical positions are not showing up for work stoned.
It could also be used by employers who oppose marijuana use for whatever reason on every employee.
I posted this to give everyone a heads up on this future development coming at us.
The sad part is,we will have to support it's deployment just to show America that we can work without using marijuana at work.

 

Just a foot note on the detection device and the chart,when they start using this a lawyer is going to ask how long before testing the drug use occurred because the machine apparently shows drugs present in saliva for days but does not say how many days.
If the machine cannot designate how long it has been or the strength of the drugs in your saliva as a scale to determine time of use,the lawyer should be able to argue that his client used the marijuana 12 hours or more before testing and therefore he was not per se impaired by the drug when tested.
It could be our saving grace and we need a lawyer type to inform us if it is a proper defense.
If we could get the info out that the detector device is no more dependable for proof of use within the last 4 hours prior too the drugged driving/working impaired event it is no more reliable than urine testing it could save us millions in tax dollars and court cases,fines,etc.,
We really need to know just how acurate and if the machine gives any indication of exact amount of time since use.

 

We are not trying to support working or driving while impaired but we don't need another law on the books that uses a testing device that shows just the presence of the drug. Presence of the drug does not necessarily mean that the person is impaired.
The recent simulator driving study by the California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research has the info for determining the actual length of time a person is considered impaired but on the last report from them the findings were still being written up.
If the detector shows the presence of the drug for days after ingestion will that get you charged with "drugged driving"? If you smoked a joint today the presence of the drug would still show up tomorrow after a nights sleep and therefor you are no longer impaired but may still get you charged. That would make the machine as useless as a urine test for proving actual impairment.

Impact of Repeated Cannabis Treatments on Driving Abilities