1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New breathalyzer for Marijuana (THC) developed

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Shaul, Oct 20, 2019.

  1. Shaul

    Shaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,483
    Ratings:
    +901
    Religion:
    Judaism
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. beenherebeforeagain

    beenherebeforeagain Rogue Animist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    17,202
    Ratings:
    +5,223
    Religion:
    Modern Animist
    All the cops I've ever heard talk on this matter (in the vicinity of 100...sure, that's a scientific sample...) (and it's more about general demeanor, not about driving specifically) (and mind you, that's personal not official position) would rather have everyone stoned than drunk or drugged strung out on coke, meth or any similar popular drugs. (that's over a period from the late 1970s to 2016)

    Now then, those who combine one or more other inebriants with pot don't fall into that category...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,217
    Ratings:
    +1,284
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    6,601
    Ratings:
    +4,102
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    I think this is good. Driving while impaired, is illegal in most states-- the law often does not specify which drug is causing the impairment.

    Whereas I'm strongly in favor of legalization? I do not want to drive on the same streets with anyone impaired by any legal (or illegal) drug.

    I'm in favor of ticketing people on *any* narcotic-- be it a pain killer or weed or alcohol or anything else. That needs to stop. People are being killed.

    The opium epidemic has made this worse.

    I think a device that shows the level of mental impairment? Is good-- for it would also give an alibi to people who legally obtain pot, but are not high while driving.
     
  5. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    6,601
    Ratings:
    +4,102
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    Self driving cars are going to be a thing, for sure. I think it's a very good thing-- people do stupid things. Robots? Cannot get drunk or high or take one too many pain pills.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    28,616
    Ratings:
    +15,977
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Self driving cars are the car of the future. Eventually driver's licenses are likely to be very restricted.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    37,846
    Ratings:
    +14,410
    Religion:
    Love
    I suppose bugs in self-driving car software are not as bad as bugs in human being's "software"
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  8. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    28,616
    Ratings:
    +15,977
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Even right now the record of self driving cars is far better than that of humans. The very rare cases of an accident, especially a fatal one, makes headlines. Meanwhile there were over 40,000 fatalities from car accidents in 2017. If we reasoned without rationally driverless cars would already be legal.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,426
    Ratings:
    +12,160
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    *** Mod Post ***

    Please be aware that Marijuana use is still illegal according to US federal law, which is the controlling law for this site. Discussion of recreational use falls under rule 6:

    6. Illegal Activities
    Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.
     
  10. Stevicus

    Stevicus Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    9,060
    Ratings:
    +4,459
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I found the first sentence of the article rather interesting:

    "Adamantly against it."

    A constant refrain one might generally hear from cops (especially when they have to enforce a law that nobody seems to like) is "I don't make the laws, but I'm only doing my job. Blame the legislators, not me."

    But when they have the opportunity to give input on changing these laws that they claim they have nothing to do with, they show their true colors.

    As for the concern about impaired drivers, I found a study which explores that question: THE EFFECT OF CANNABIS COMPARED WITH ALCOHOL ON DRIVING

    I've heard of another study which tested three groups, one group impaired by alcohol, a second group impaired by marijuana, and a third group which was unimpaired and sober. Those impaired by marijuana were actually safer than those who were unimpaired by anything. Those who were impaired by alcohol did the worst, as expected.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,217
    Ratings:
    +1,284
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    Should it be against the law for somebody, who is under the influence of legal prescription drugs, to ride in the driver seat of a self-driving car?
     
  12. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    6,601
    Ratings:
    +4,102
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    Well, yes... in my experience from observing (I've never had an opportunity to imbibe myself, wasn't legal until recently, and I'm highly allergic to all smoke anyhow) people high just get the munchies, and tend to drive really slow or not at all. Whereas people on booze? Tend to speed... far in excess of their current skill.

    I'm all in favor of severe restrictions to driving by humans; perhaps limited to non-public roads, such as parking lots, farms and race tracks.

    You never hear of a self-driving robot car wanting to race to the next traffic light, or to cut you off in traffic*.


    * True story! Yesterday, in a two-lane left from a stoplight, the mentally-impaired human driver on my left did indeed sharply cut into MY late, drifting over as if they were the only car on the road. Leaning on my horn had no effect. Fortunately, I was also able to do two things at once, and was also slamming my brakes. Thank the stars the cars behind *me* were not close, and were also able to slow down.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Stevicus

    Stevicus Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    9,060
    Ratings:
    +4,459
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I'm reminded of the line from the movie Heavy Metal:

    I also like the idea of self-driving cars. For one thing, it would seem that all the cars would be tied in to a central network, so the smart cars would know the traffic conditions throughout the area. They would make the lane changes at the proper time, so there'd be no last second lane changes across three lanes of traffic. No wrong-way drivers either. There's been a rash of accidents lately due to wrong-way drivers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    6,601
    Ratings:
    +4,102
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    My only fear of a centralized system? Is hacking. If some chaos-inspired hacker gets into the central system, and hacks it? Massive pile-ups.

    Whereas, a distributed-intelligence system (think: the way the internet works-- there is zero centralized control of any of it, 'intelligence' is distributed across all the billions of servers and individual computers and smart devices) is more immune to a hacker's efforts.

    So a hacker gets control of a few vehicles, intent on mayhem. The non-infected ones, correctly identify the hacked ones as either being on unpredictable manual control? Or defective, moving out of the way of the would-be crash-causing hacked cars.

    It would be nearly impossible to hack them all, if none were centrally controlled.

    However, a blend of the two ideas? Individually intelligent vehicles, and an external agency who reports traffic densities and average speeds to individual vehicles. It'd be difficult to mess that up, as each vechicle only uses the traffic data for route prediction, falling back on local observation of surrounding cars for minute, second-by-second control.

    Think flocking birds-- there is no "master Bird Leader" in a flock, each bird flies by a short list of simple rules, including collision avoidance, etc. Self-driving cars could use similar rules (and indeed, even now, the so-called Adaptive Cruise Control does exactly that).

    Tesla's self-driving car goes even further than Adaptive Cruise--which it has-- in that it'll also keep within a lane on a highway. It'll slow down or speed up, to avoid conflict with nearby cars, and indeed, won't allow nearby cars to pace with the Tesla, slowing or speeding to avoid remaining exactly beside another car for a long time.

    If all cars had built-in collision avoidance? Even if the human was doing most of the steering?

    We'd all be many times safer-- no accidental drifting into someone's lane. No sudden lane-shift, if another car was nearby-- the computer wouldn't allow it (collision avoidance).

    Added Bonus Feature: built in collision avoidance would automatically apply to people walking (or bicycles). The pedestrian would be seen as an object, and the car's computer would try to avoid the object, by applying braking and/or steering.

    Double Bonus Feature: Motorcycles would be much much safer as well-- as smart cars would see these as manually operated vehicles, to be avoided where ever possible, 100% unpredictable. :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...