I think comments like this are incredibly harmful. There is a strong need for this device, and this person is working to fill the need.
To also hoist the responsibility of fixing society's fundamental issues and ask him/her to give up the revenue (not just profit) that they earns is absurd. I would say that this person is doing more than their fair share.
I initially wanted to argue the "Strong need for this device" premise that you layed out, because last I checked the dose-response research re: thc and driving impairment hadn't really been done.
However when I did the research on PubMed, there are some systematic reviews which indicate things like the following [1]:
"Nearly two thirds of US trauma center admissions are due to motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), with almost 60% of such patients testing positive for drugs or alcohol."
They conclude with:
"Consuming cannabis before driving, with or without alcohol, is a common occurrence that produces substantial morbidity and mortality on the roadway. Research is needed to further define cannabis’ effects on driving performance and to provide the scientific basis for laws to improve road safety."
What needs to be shown? It is well known that cannabis use while driving is both very common and very dangerous[1]. Or are you trying to argue that breathalyzers are not needed to combat this problem? I would argue that the absence of these devices has caused a great deal of damage to the innocent while making it difficult to detect and punish the guilty[2].
Doing more than their fair share of what? It looks like they recognized an issue facing society and chose to exploit the problem for money rather than actually help fix the it. The need for this device is coming from the police-industrial complex, not society at large.
The war on drugs has been incredibly damaging in the U.S., and I absolutely do not want the police to have even more tools to wage it.
> The war on drugs has been incredibly damaging in the U.S., and I absolutely do not want the police to have even more tools to wage it.
I absolutely agree. I think having an easy way to test for sobriety will pave the way for legalization. It makes legalization much more palatable politically.
> The need for this device is coming from the police-industrial complex, not society at large.
I have a couple of friends who live in a state with recreational weed. They work on safety critical stuff (think construction). Because of this, they get random drug tested because being impaired can mean deaths. This also means that, even though weed is perfectly legal, they cannot use it because it is impossible for their employer to test sobriety at the job site. They desperately wish a weed breathalyzer was real.
You'll test positive in a drug test weeks after smoking. We need a way to test for sobriety. I don't understand how that can possibly be controversial.
To also hoist the responsibility of fixing society's fundamental issues and ask him/her to give up the revenue (not just profit) that they earns is absurd. I would say that this person is doing more than their fair share.