A new portable device to detect marijuana use almost right away

marijuana
A dried flower bud of the Cannabis plant. Credit: Public Domain

(Phys.org)—California based Hound Labs Inc. is claiming to have made a breakthrough in the rush to develop a portable device capable of detecting THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in the breath of someone that has recently smoked a substance containing the chemical. They claim also that their device will soon be small enough for use by law enforcement to remove impaired drivers from the road.

Several states in the U.S. have legalized recreational marijuana use, and even more have allowed it for medicinal use. This trend has on edge as there is currently no roadside test that can detect THC use by a driver in real time—instead, if such use is suspected, police officers must take blood or that can take days to deliver an answer—that makes it difficult to arrest a driver on the spot, which means in some cases, letting them go to continue driving under the influence. Making things even more challenging is that not enough research has been done by scientists to find out how much THC in the body causes impaired driving—states have set different levels, and some have instituted a zero-level tolerance policy.

In this new announcement, Hound Labs claims it has developed a device that is capable of detecting minute levels (below 500 picograms) of THC in the breath, which the company also claims is the only way to differentiate between heavy marijuana users who maintain high levels of THC in their bodies even hours or days after use, and those who have recently smoked it, in whatever form. Mike Lynn CEO and co-founder of the company is a practicing emergency medicine physician who has presumably witnessed the tragic consequences of people driving after smoking the drug and is looking to put a stop to it.

As part of their announcement, Hound Labs says that it is working with scientists from academic institutions, and other researchers and expects to have a product small enough for a police officer to carry and use by the end of next year. They note also that the device will also work as an alcohol breathalyzer and should cost approximately the same as current breathalyzers.


Explore further

Testing for secondhand marijuana exposure

More information: houndlabs.com/science/

© 2015 Phys.org

Citation: A new portable device to detect marijuana use almost right away (2015, December 3) retrieved 20 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-12-portable-device-marijuana.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1116 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 03, 2015
Cannabis stays too long in the body for this to predict physical effect. It is just another tool to abuse for the fun and profit of police jurisdictions.

Cannabis does not produce the same effect as alcohol, and usually does not affect performance. Big Brother will be all over us with this.

Dec 03, 2015
Sometimes I think freedom is like a pie....There more of us there are sharing it, the smaller the piece each one gets.

Dec 03, 2015
"Mike Lynn CEO and co-founder of the company is a practicing emergency medicine physician who has presumably witnessed the tragic consequences of people driving after smoking the drug and is looking to put a stop to it."
----------------------
Looking to make a buck. You lying sack of shit Mike Lynn!


Dec 03, 2015
They thought they had proof of cannabis affecting driving here a few years ago. There was a half-joint in the ashtray of a truck which caused a big pile-up on the way to the Bay Bridge.

It turned out there was NO cannabis in the body of the driver, but he was drunk!

EWH
Dec 03, 2015
The solution to finding whether or not a driver is impaired is to measure whether the driver actually is impaired, using reaction times, roadside driving simulators etc., not to measure unreliable proxies such as substances in the breath. There are many reasons that can cause impairment such as lack of sleep, senile dementia and low blood sugar which will not show up on the substance tests, and contrariwise, often borderline amounts of substances in the blood are found in drivers that still outperform the unimpaired average.

Dec 03, 2015
the transport research lab in the UK did some real impaired driver tests, only to fine that cannabis impairs only the ability to reverse round a roundabout - an illegal manoeuvre, and one you can't find in America.
The funny this was that they found that the drunk drivers were much better if they followed it up with a big spliff.

Dec 03, 2015
Hey, we all have portable brains that can detect our cannabis use right away - just don't drive stoned and stupid.

Dec 03, 2015
I think this is a boon to all canabis users, who up till this are at risk of a positive finding in a blood test for use in days or weeks before and despite current sobriety
.
Punishment can be severe. Years of imprisonment or just losing your job for a failed blood test is the current regime, even in states with medical marijuana laws.

Dec 03, 2015
Pass the Detector on the left hand side.
Pass the Detector on the left hand side.
It ah go bun'

Dec 03, 2015
It won't matter soon anyway.

"If it please the court, I wasn't driving, your honor. My car was."

Dec 03, 2015
The bud in the picture needs smoking.

Dec 04, 2015
The manufactures would do better to detect Stupid on peoples breath. It's far more dangerous for society and there needs more limits put on those who have it present in their system!

Dec 04, 2015
If cannabis actually impaired people's ability to drive safely, DUI laws would have been passed 30 years ago to criminalize this behavior. In fact, studies have found stoned drivers (excluding newbie drivers) are far safer drivers than drunken drivers, and at least one study that I am aware of found they are safer than sober drivers as well. To the extent that college kids substitute pot for booze, the accident fatality rate will decline in "legal" states.

But the drug warriors --- the bloodsuckers who self-righteously destroy other people's lives with a surety not even hard drugs like heroin can match --- their industry will continue to promote a false paradigm supported by phony science and scary headlines until the public cuts off their funding and rejects the "war on drugs" for the civil rights travesty which it is.

Dec 04, 2015
Anonym, you must have read the same article as I. A police force put up a challenge course and had youngsters drive it before and after smoking. I do not know where they got permission to give kids cannabis, but there you have it. Those who had never smoked did worse. Those who had smoked before did better stoned than they did straight.

Dec 04, 2015
A police force put up a challenge course and had youngsters drive it before and after smoking.


Of course they did Cher. I bet you are hoping nobody checks on that.

I do not know where they got permission to give kids cannabis, but there you have it.


If that ever happened anywhere or anytime it would be all over the Google. glam-Skippy do you EVER think for a moment before you push the "Post My Latest Of The Top Of My Head Argument Winning Gem"? The 3 minute take him back rule is just for couyons like you.

Those who had never smoked did worse.


So the police gave some kids who never smoked pot their first taste? Uh huh, that sounds right.

Those who had smoked before did better stoned than they did straight.


Cher, tell the trut, you just pulled that out of your butt, right? You are one lame debater, but that's okay because you smarter than any Skippy you will run into on the physorg, eh?

Dec 06, 2015
Yup, if one is unable to look up "driving test cannabis police course", one is not very bright. But that's okay, because others make up for you.

Dec 06, 2015
Anonym, you must have read the same article as I. A police force put up a challenge course and had youngsters drive it before and after smoking. I do not know where they got permission to give kids cannabis, but there you have it. Those who had never smoked did worse. Those who had smoked before did better stoned than they did straight.


The "kids" were 27, 34 and 56 years old. The test was administered by a news station and supervised by sheriff deputies. The 27 year old heavy user initially did okay as did the causal
users but by the more they smoked the more their driving deteriorated and all would have been busted for DUI by the end of the test.

https://www.youtu...HavgoK9E

Dec 06, 2015
Anonym, you must have read the same article as I. A police force put up a challenge course and had youngsters drive it before and after smoking. I do not know where they got permission to give kids cannabis, but there you have it. Those who had never smoked did worse. Those who had smoked before did better stoned than they did straight.


The "kids" were 27, 34 and 56 years old. The test was administered by a news station and supervised by sheriff deputies. The 27 year old heavy user initially did okay as did the causal
users but by the more they smoked the more their driving deteriorated and all would have been busted for DUI by the end of the test.

https://www.youtu...HavgoK9E

Dec 06, 2015
Yup, if one is unable to look up "driving test cannabis police course", one is not very bright. But that's okay, because others make up for you.


One is not very bright to make the silly tale tail you make about reading the article where POLICE gave KIDS marijuana and some of them were FIRST TIME USERS.

glam-Skippy you are a first class moron and your "anecdotes" and your "personal observations" and your "real life experiences" all sound like you was smoking marijuana while you were thinking them up and writing them down.

Dec 06, 2015
Yup, if one is unable to look up "driving test cannabis police course", one is not very bright. But that's okay, because others make up for you.


Google "driving test cannabis POLICE course" your own self and see how much the idiot you are.

Why it is you get so mad when peoples don't believe you? 10 times out of 9 you get it wrong (some are so wrong they count as two wrongs if you are wondering about the ciphering there.)

Dec 06, 2015
The first person to come up with a device to detect steroid use from a distance will destroy the entire law enforcement apparatus.

Dec 06, 2015
Yup, if one is unable to look up "driving test cannabis police course", one is not very bright. But that's okay, because others make up for you. - gkam


Thanks for looking this up for us, uh Vietvet.

gkam - Why bring it up if you can't look it up yourself. Lazy much?

Dec 06, 2015
@Estevan57

It was too easy. I just copied and pasted gham's "driving test cannabis police course" into my browser address bar. First return was a Huffington article with the You Tube video. He could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment but this isn't the first time he's jacked his jaws without checking his facts.

Dec 06, 2015
Vietvet, I read the list of references with those words.

Your attitude is Number Ten.

Dec 06, 2015
Your attitude is Number Ten.


Then why you vote him down Cher? You should have give the Number Five for his help to you. He was only trying to do you the favor and look up for you what everybody else looked up when you first make your silly comment. You should take his advisement,,,,,, Look it up for your self instead of telling everybody else to look it up. And it would be good if you did that BEFORE you push the postum button.

That's why you are usually wrong and get mad at the peoples who are right because they use the computer for something other than making postums like the ones you make to try to look like a leader of peoples in the know. You remind us all of how Little-Ira-Skippy used to look when he was 8 or 7 years old playing Army-Man or Scientist-Man or such like he used to do when he was small.


Dec 07, 2015
... the more they smoked the more their driving deteriorated and all would have been busted for DUI by the end of the test
@vietvet
oddly enough, this is also the exact same thing i said WRT an MJ use test in our own FD and driving elsewhere on PO:
http://phys.org/n...eat.html

thanks for posting that video. those folk did far better than the folk in our own tests, believe it or not
fascinating

Dec 07, 2015
vietvet knows what number ten means, even if the stay-at-home "patriots" do not.

You just revealed more ignorance.

Dec 07, 2015
vietvet knows what number ten means, even if the stay-at-home "patriots" do not.

You just revealed more ignorance.
@gkam
1- i was not talking to you
2- i was not talking about number ten
3- when you continually make unsubstantiated claims (false claims: also known as LIES) it makes your credibility drop, just like benni, cantdrive or jvk

so, as nicely as i can put it: FOAD

Dec 07, 2015
vietvet knows what number ten means, even if the stay-at-home "patriots" do not.

You just revealed more ignorance.


The use of "number 10" as a slur may have been popular in Thailand but during three years in
Northern I Corps I can only remember it being said a handful of times and only once by a Vietnamese.

A fellow Marine made a slightly lewd comment in fun to an older Vietnamese women who responded with "you number 10" as she laughed.

Dec 07, 2015
We were more polite to the Asians. It was their country.

Dec 07, 2015
Stump, I was not talking to you, either.

Dec 08, 2015
One source of info is a book published (I think) in the early 70's by Scientific American; it was titled "Altered States of Awareness". It contains the info regarding the tests done by the State of Washington which confirmed that on average, the stoned driver commits fewer mistakes than the straight driver, at least for the first hour or two. Probably way out of print, but that's one source.
Garbage technology, IMHO...

Dec 10, 2015
One source of info is a book published (I think) in the early 70's by Scientific American; it was titled "Altered States of Awareness"
@Wolf
i will look for this book, but (IMHO) i doubt seriously that stoned drivers make fewer mistakes

.

.

Stump...
@gkam
when you aren't capable of being specific or directing your post to an individual then it stands to reason that your post is applicable to all parties on the thread

1- unless there is someone who has never seen ANY movies about 'Nam, then it is highly unlikely anyone didn't get your "number ten" reference
2- this was also popularized by "Full Metal Jacket" (movie) and it is also NOT indicative of every 'Nam vet's experiences, therefore it is SUBJECTIVE
3- quit making every f-ing thread about your perceived superiority when you can't even substantiate half of the claims you've been making

it's really NOT all about you here


Dec 10, 2015
What's needed is a quick test to detect psychopaths

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more