digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at telegraph.co.uk

Scary: Your Fingerprint Can Now Show if You Smoke Weed

telegraph.co.uk — Fingerprints could be used to detect traces of drugs or explosives in one of the most significant improvements in the technology for years. Police now have the ability to analyse the traces of cannabis, cocaine and other drugs, or explosives, in a fingerprint itself.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SimianSamurai, on 08/08/2008, -12/+137There goes my lunch break
    • craftyguy, on 08/08/2008, -2/+15Roach clip?
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/08/2008, -2/+9Still gotta roll it...
      • PaulOwen, on 08/08/2008, -1/+23"can analyse as little as a billionth of a gram of material"

        "This technique can pick up small amounts of drugs like cocaine or THC, the active ingredient from marijuana, as well as compounds from explosives"

        Yes, indeed it will pick up trace amounts of just about anything, on just about anyone. This gives police vital information such as "either that person smoked weed, or they sat next to someone, shook hands with someone or bumped into someone who smokes weed, snorts cocaine, works in a mining quarry etc".

        Nothing to see here.
      • LeeSoong, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2This reminds me of the time police tried to trace drug money in California by testing for cocaine.

        Unfortunately, ALL the money they tested came back positive for traces of cocaine.

        They gave up.

    • TheJimid, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10There goes my day at work in general.
    • RichardSwingman, on 08/08/2008, -30/+2Obviously digg is full of potheads. soon they have 3 year olds that gets high with their friends because their parents hated cops and laws.

      libertards unite! lol
      • enclaved, on 08/08/2008, -3/+8I'm waiting till my kid is at least 6 to introduce him to the contact high, how dare you group us all together like that.
      • antipoet, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3You like getting dugg down, don't you?
      • GVR90, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4First of all, people who smoke pot are not all 'potheads'. Secondly, if you don't like the fact that there are what you consider to be potheads here, then GTFO.
      • ShadowofAres, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Honestly, did you not expect to find potheads on the internets?
      • UNL1M1T3D, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2There were a lot of "pot heads" involved in the early beginnings of the internet/computers.
    • agentVivid, on 08/08/2008, -2/+12BIG deal... it's probably too expensive to apply to most common people (mass spectroscopy : http://depts.washington.edu/medchem/msc/rates.html ...
    • SystematicChaos, on 08/08/2008, -2/+16You can always smoke with your toes
    • saikyan, on 08/08/2008, -11/+6You could always stop smoking... Just a thought.
      • itspuddingtime, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1NOT AN OPTION
      • cjflashman, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2For most of us, it isn't an option because we have social lives, and do not need such a bad image.
        I do realize I am only in highschool, but people giggle about smoking pot like jacking off.

        I guess I haven't met anyone who smokes weed and is actually a decent person about it, the above comment is simply proof that most, doubtingly all, like to force their opnions down other people's throats.
      • nomadxx7, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1@cjflashman

        I guess your lack of experience is true. I'm older than high school and have met many cool people that smoke weed (read doctors, lawyers, police officers). You can usually tell their demeanor and how they actively look at weed as a drug. Some police officers I've talked too don't see the whole problem with weed whereas when you bring up the other drugs (i.e. coke, heroin, meth) they said it should be enforced.

        Many people smoke weed. The problem right now is that our representatives represent an era of the past. They are not so far in the past when heroin was readily available and sold by every street vendor as a tonic for hair loss, stress relief etc.
    • kaosethema, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2i'm hungry
    • ummagummas08, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Shouldn't we bury this technology?
  • mwrl, on 08/08/2008, -91/+11Better then a pee test. I hope they push this out asap!
    • 89greener, on 08/08/2008, -9/+33What the ***** is wrong with you?

      You Communist.
      • shutaro, on 08/08/2008, -7/+5You Nihilist.
      • bjornski, on 08/08/2008, -1/+8Oh piss off, nihilists aren't always.....


        Oh never mind. What's the use....
      • RichardSwingman, on 08/08/2008, -8/+3pot head
      • thcobbs, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5Remember.. Nihilism is best practiced by professionals....
      • mwrl, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1@89greener

        US Military+Drugs=10 years in Federal Prison.

        No thanks.
    • jroussell, on 08/08/2008, -3/+9mwrl, i would not want to smoke with you
      • mwrl, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2That is good, it is illegal and I could lose my stripes. I have a future and thus have no need to smoke anything.
      • nomadxx7, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4@mwrl

        US Military+Drugs=10 years in Federal Prison.

        I somehow think I'd take 10 years in jail than 10 years in Iraq
      • mwrl, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1Been to Iraq, it was boring. I have been to New Orleans, it is worse the Iraq.
    • ParaSwarm, on 08/08/2008, -2/+4Stop trying to be unique please.
    • Logicswitch1, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Than
  • ed54, on 08/08/2008, -15/+314*****.
    • Tyorant, on 08/08/2008, -5/+64Every weed smoker who read that title said that as they clicked it..
      • sonar1, on 08/08/2008, -1/+27i went with *****
      • ausfahrt, on 08/08/2008, -7/+4sonar1:
        I did too but that was after breakfast and it felt nice.
    • Sherman901, on 08/08/2008, -10/+5that's exactly what i was going to say....

      *****...
    • RichardSwingman, on 08/08/2008, -33/+3theres a lot of pot heads on digg unfortunately...

      oh yeah house of libertards....
      • thefarouk, on 08/08/2008, -1/+9Go find your penis, dude, and stop looking at everyone elses...
      • sb66, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5please don't reproduce
    • mavedatthews85, on 08/08/2008, -3/+15*****, indeed! I don't smoke even remotely regularly, but if this is anything like the spinal fluid or hair test... well, *****.
    • kwasmosis, on 08/08/2008, -4/+14Whatever this is *****, they can't prove anything off of this type of evidence.

      I mean there are traces of drugs on everything here in America.

      See article below.

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080805/sc_li ...
      • ShadowofAres, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5Hell, there are illegal drugs in the tapwater.
        Don't go and start drinking it, though. It's too diluted to have any affect...
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I think I'm going to start grinding up dollars and sniffing them.
      • CylonsOfTheLamb, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Officer Goatse: Sir we scanned the fingerprints on your steering wheel with this little dildo looking device, and it says you've been in contact with illegal drugs. We now have reasonable cause to search your vehicle without your permission. I also sent another unit by your home and the doorknob on your front door also tested positive. We'll be executing a search warrant on your home in about 5 minutes.

    • thefarouk, on 08/08/2008, -5/+10Actually this could backfire in a huge way. Let's be blunt, the vast majority of us have either tried it, do it, or are around people who do. Let's see them try to put 30M Americans in jail at once. Never gonna happen.

      Also, since law enforcement and other related individuals are always around such persons, how will they differentiate? Or does this mean that all the Overlords of the land get blanket immunity? Now that would truly be *****. I thought they were happy enough just being able to shoot innocent dogs and mothers with babies in their arms...
    • toonworld, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Well for the paranoid, just wear latex gloves as you roll and then use clips for smoking.

      for us people living in Qc, it's not actually illegal to consume it, it's just illegal to possess it, so we don't really care.
    • driftholic, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1Fark this
    • passedoutghost, on 08/09/2008, -0/+0I don't smoke weed, but I still said ***** because this is just the tip of a scary iceberg.
  • davidwasman, on 08/08/2008, -8/+217The problem I see with this, even though I am not a smot poker, is that they could use this to rationalize a search and seizure.

    That's getting into 1984 territory.

    Also, what if I eat a poppyseed muffin? Will it think I had heroin?
    • TheImaginator, on 08/08/2008, -3/+76Yeah, stick this together with;
      54 million people scanned at airports so far (their names, dates of birth, place of birth, sex, credit card history, and details of their travelling companions)
      Government paying companies to supply them with data on internet use (containing your mothers maiden name, your CV, your credit/bank card history, travel history, contact details for you and family and friends, photos of family and friends, your emails, your comments, your blogs, your download history, and what pron you like to watch)
      Companies paying government to make laws to control what you download and 'forcing' ISP's to watch you and report you.
      All telephone calls, emails and internet use monitored and shared with a central European intelligence database, itself shared with the USA.
      They will not extradite terrorists, but they will extradite hackers - even if the prospect of unlawful trial or torture is the same.
      Lawful protests outside public places (government buildings and judiciary buildings) now unlawful in some cases (they decide).
      You can be locked up for 42 days without being told why, then put under house arrest for 12 months at a time (repeatedly thereafter).
      You are being watched by over 4 million CCTV cameras in the UK
      Scientology has a church right next to St Pauls in London, given to them by the City of London itself and protected from being called a cult by the City of London police (not the Met incidently).
      This is the tip of the iceberg.
      We are so ***** it's unreal.
      • mrfoos2, on 08/08/2008, -36/+3The only people ****ed are the badguys. 'bout time!
      • notanidiot, on 08/08/2008, -1/+41The bad guys? This isn't a TV show, you know. Everyone is bad in someones eyes.
      • TedTschopp, on 08/08/2008, -1/+9I would have stuck with:
        "The bad guys? This isn't a TV show, you know. Everyone is bad to some degree or another. No one is perfect all the time."
      • convergent, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6I love poppyseed muffins :(
      • funkyloki, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2@mrfoos2: Do you really believe that? Do you not believe that they will keep and transfer info on ANYONE, not just the bad guys? Doesn't it bother you that companies (read greedy bastards) are making money on what amounts to your personal info (read YOU), without your approval or knowledge? Consider this: sooner or later we are all bad in the eyes of someone (I am reiterating Ted's comment).
      • UNL1M1T3D, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3I love heroin muffins. :)
      • trevah, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2@ mrfoos2

        You're stupid. The only people that have any sort of excuse to make a comment like that are 9-year olds and illiterates. You obviously aren't illiterate and I'm guessing you're not 9 so I'll just have to assume you possess all the naivete of a 9 year old and end it there. Now go watch some TV show where everything is conveniently black and white because we all know that's how life really is.
    • feliks2, on 08/08/2008, -2/+15Yes, and what happens when my friends smoke lots of weed and have it all over their *****?
      • alexforcefive, on 08/08/2008, -1/+31you can go to jail for touching it, you filthy dope fiend!
      • LemonChicken, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8"Well, tell us exactly which people have come in contac twith marijuana.
      • Tezdoll, on 08/08/2008, -11/+3Let me fix that for you.

        "Yes, and what happes when i smoke a lot of weed and it gets all over my *****"

        then

        you can go to jail for touching it, you filthy dope fiend!
    • hughesj919, on 08/08/2008, -1/+30I thought they already quit rationalizing search and seizures.
      • yikiad, on 08/08/2008, -2/+20they did. it's called the patriot act.
      • ComradeRikhi, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5Is that marijuana I smell on your breath?
    • vat0r, on 08/08/2008, -1/+17So big deal, I smoke pot. You want to waste XX amount of dollars to reinforce what I'll openly admit then have at it.
    • NodOfficer, on 08/08/2008, -1/+37What happens if I handle American currency!?
      • Tezdoll, on 08/08/2008, -1/+16
        quote -
        -Alexforcefive-
        you can go to jail for touching it, you filthy dope fiend!
      • zip000, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5Then you've got a lot of ***** on your hands apparently....as well as the cocaine obviously.
      • yugnats, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Your head explodes.
    • warriorscot, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5The technology is just a tool what needs to get handled are search and seizure laws which are a good idea but like allot of good ideas to easy to abuse for large scale implementation.

      Search and seizure laws should only be applied for big time criminals that have been convicted and jailed and even then only done on a case by case basis. Otherwise abuse happens and protection becomes oppression.
      • ShadowofAres, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3So we should only issue search warrants for big time criminals?
    • justbloggin, on 08/08/2008, -6/+2Pot smokers own stuff? Other than a clip...
    • paulpas, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4I think you're just paranoid.
    • cawpin, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I could possibly be on the other end of the scan. If I happen to get fingerprinted, which I've only done to get a carry permit, after I have been reloading I may set it off. Of course, I don't plan on getting arrested so I'm not worried. This isn't 1984, people. If you're getting fingerprinted you either did it voluntarily or already did something stupid.
      • theuber1337, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Not true. In a lot of schools, they take the kids to get fingerprinted. Just to show them the process. Then they come home thinking that was awesome! They got ink on their fingers and everything!
    • mjvxl, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0I can only see this being used in airports because they can now make there own laws and judge people without a fair trial. But in our legal system you cant convict someone on the evidence found with this method as it is inconclusive as to whether you were in contact with the substance or whether you were in contact with someone else who was in contact with the substance. So in the end it will be placed next to the polygraph - as in it wont be accepted in court. Also, here in Canada our police have better things to deal with then a guy who has pot in his finger print... I hope
    • Genma, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1misleading title is misleading.
    • iperalta, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Then you just remind them of the Seinfeld Episode.
  • supermanred, on 08/08/2008, -19/+8*****!
  • Hosalabad, on 08/08/2008, -2/+112It could also see what I did with my wife last night.
    • shutaro, on 08/08/2008, -4/+61It could also see what I did with my self last night. *fixed*
    • ChronicColonic, on 08/08/2008, -1/+49And at a certain website for a nominal fee, we can too.
    • WhoDoneIt, on 08/08/2008, -2/+41I hope it couldn't tell what I did with your wife the night before. :P
    • suckanucka, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10I use my nose.
    • UNL1M1T3D, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Fee? Your going to the wrong place.
  • GordonFree, on 08/08/2008, -12/+163One of the most significant improvements in privacy violation technology for years!
    • GordonFree, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2But seriously. I admire these guys. I wanna shake the hand of whoever invented the Taser. And then tase them.

      Ahh we would have so much fun.
    • ShadowofAres, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2I'm sorry, but how unaware do you have to be to think that anything you do is actually private?
    • DroogInPhoenix, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Next they will know what we are thinking by analyzing our poop.
  • esfisher, on 08/08/2008, -3/+122That's the last time I give the cops the finger.
  • mattmcegg, on 08/08/2008, -2/+53I think I'll start washing my hands.
    • NCg8r, on 08/08/2008, -0/+192 by 2, hands of blue.
    • harmil, on 08/08/2008, -0/+11Won't help. Washing your hands removes a majority, but not all of whatever you've come in contact with. Some remains attached to skin cells which then shed over time. It is these very skin cells that will be detected by this new technique. It's not shocking, and it's been possible to do this with hair for some time. Problem is that it's detecting such trace amounts that there's a greatly increased risk of false positives (touching a table that someone rolled joints on, for example, would leave you testing positive even if you didn't know it had been there.

      • Adamlite, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Any hope if you carry around a bottle of Purell?
    • roflbrothel, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1RTFA
  • arjie, on 08/08/2008, -18/+10*****, this is a big ouchie. I've quit pot, how long do the effects stay? Besides, they can't arrest you for drug use, can they? It's only possession and sale that's illegal, right? Someone please clarify.

    Wait, they need a mass spectrometer? This is going to take some time to happen.
    • chadsterrr, on 08/08/2008, -2/+9As far as I know, only possession and transaction is illegal. Use and past use is not regulated... unless you plan on getting a job for any of those EOE or Drug Free ***** corporations
    • BeatPunchbeef, on 08/08/2008, -1/+10Paranoid much?
      • Sh0ck4, on 08/08/2008, -1/+6Didnt you know all potheads are paranoid?
      • arjie, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2In all honesty, yes. That's why I quit. It was driving me crazy, or I was driving me crazy and it was making it worse.
      • Stroggoth, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0I thought pot cured cancer, mental disorders, pain, social ills, etc. You mean.. they lied? Oh, say it isn't so!
      • ShadowofAres, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1If boredom is a mental/social disorder, then yes.
        But like arjie said, prolonged use can make it a hell of a lot worse.
    • xyllar, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6What, don't you watch TV? All modern forensics labs come equipped with a mass spectrometer these days, if you believe what you see on any of the popular crime dramas.
      • harmil, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2They are fairly common in big cities. Elsewhere, samples are usually sent out to a lab.

      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2And all lab results take mere seconds to complete...
      • ShadowofAres, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2And you can find a single strand of hair on a shirt in one try.
    • dexter411, on 08/08/2008, -0/+11"Wait, they need a mass spectrometer? This is going to take some time to happen."

      ... This would be true if we lived in 1903.
    • strangewill, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3"Wait, they need a mass spectrometer? This is going to take some time to happen."
      What, I carry one with me all the time, they're quite useful!
    • harmil, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3"how long do the effects stay?"

      I'm going to hazard a guess around 2-4 weeks. That's a wild guess, but they're going to be detecting skin cells that are going to be sloughing off normally, anyway, so after some relatively short period of time there's just not going to be enough of them left to detect. At the outside, it's going to be about as long as a cut on your finger takes to completely heal.



      • WallyAnti, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1"Some of the residues left behind are from naturally occurring compounds in the skin and some are from other surfaces or materials a person has touched."

        It doesn't detect skin cells so much as the compounds secreted from them. Also I don't believe fingerprints are left by skin cells so much as the oils left by contact.
    • arjie, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Well, about the mass spectrometer. They were talking about checking the fingerprints where they were, not taking the samples somewhere.
    • kcap122, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Based on the method they mentioned, they don't need to use a mass spec for this. They're just dissolving trace amounts of compounds from the fingerprint into a solvent, then doing an assay. They could be doing gas chromatography, high pressure liquid chromatography, or any other type of chromatography, and all of those are significantly easier. If they want to get you, they will.
      The real question is whether or not "possession" of micrograms (a useless amount, we're not talking about LSD) of a controlled substance in your fingerprint will be treated the same as possession of a significant amount.
  • Tumin, on 08/08/2008, -1/+31Just wash your hands. With bleach.
    • shutaro, on 08/08/2008, -2/+89Pro Tip: They can't finger print you if you don't have any fingers!
    • MattB123, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6And a power sander.
    • flashback99, on 08/08/2008, -0/+12or hi-five someone before you get arrested
    • DestroyFascism, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Use someone else's fingers...
    • trixterIreland, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6bleach and some other cleaners set off the detectors they have used at federal prisons which detect traces of drugs and explosives on the skin of the hands. Really this technology isnt that much of a breakthrough.
  • o5rob5o, on 08/08/2008, -2/+105hows this going to work when the majority of pot smokers fingers are greasy from potato chips and cheetos
    • 1kewldude, on 08/08/2008, -0/+27you're obivously a rookie at this - it's Doritos....
    • theonlybradever, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8and people thought it was just "the munchies", when it's actually a preventative measure to ensure against prosecution!
  • furbyboy, on 08/08/2008, -5/+13well....i'm boned!!
  • Fsuarjun, on 08/08/2008, -3/+57Time to finally put the Power Glove to good use.
    • tillerman00, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Or just regular gloves.
    • fpol3, on 08/08/2008, -2/+0you rock. oh god the power glove. I haven't thought of that in 6 years.
    • santaliqueur, on 08/08/2008, -0/+9It's so bad.
    • 89greener, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3Horse the Band, anyone?

      • tykwondingo, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Like the fury of a thousand burning suns!?
      • 89greener, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1*Exploding* but dugg for being a Digg user who recognizes HtB.
    • mizatt, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6I think a potential employer might be more alarmed by a positive test for the power glove than weed
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 08/08/2008, -8/+15Well, the upside I can see to "perfect" scanning for drugs, is, if they ever do "win" this war on drugs, all the CIA black Ops projects are going to take a huge hit.

    Oh and of course the Bush family, which is getting a cut on the opium trade.
    • sodade, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5"Oh and of course the Bush family, which is getting a cut on the opium trade."

      Got a link for that?
    • AmazingSteve, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5That why the war on drugs will never go away. Without it, A LOT of black budgets would go up in smoke so to speak.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I'm kidding but I'm not really.

      Two things that won't happen while our country is still a fascist kleptocracy (it quit being a democracy in 3/3/2003);

      1) Drugs won't become decriminalized and be treated as a health issue.

      2) A perfect means of stopping the trade won't be employed -- evenly. What that means is; areas where they want people to go to prison, will get all sorts of testing, and the people who support the establishment, will get to keep on partying, or sending their kids to "treatment" rather than Juvenile detention like the "urban" kids.

      It will mean, however, that people who criticize the government are going to be really drug free, so thanks so much for caring, BushCo!

      Meaning; nothing is going to change. But it's another thing to use to scare us and make life a pain, while Millionaires bypass security at airports on private jets, just like the Bad Guys who get their Visas from the CIA.
  • demigod, on 08/08/2008, -3/+65This is scary. There have been tests done to money that show a large percentage of it has traces of drugs on it. Even snopes shows this to be true.

    http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp

    Using this type of check will more than likely produce a ton of false positives.
    • MirrorminD, on 08/08/2008, -0/+13I was thinking the same exact thing.
    • lwoodnj, on 08/08/2008, -0/+18Well, you can probably rest assured that this WILL NOT become a successful means of prosecution as a result. A lawyer need only make the point that you could have TOUCHED it without using it, or touched it on money, or touched it on ANYTHING in some way. It's not going to stand up by itself alone.
      • Metasquares, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Not in isolation. That won't stop them from doing a different test if this one comes back positive, however.
    • duckyinc, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1They will probably add a level, like with alcohol driving limit. When you touch real weed instead of money, you will get for more particles :P
      • KSUdesigner, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5So now it's illegal just to touch weed? I don't think so.
      • duckyinc, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3But touching weed could be evidence when people say stuff like "dude, I never touched weed!!"
    • quomen, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I've read somewhere that it helps drug dogs find massive amounts of illegal cash that's being transported also.
    • davewashere, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I once worked as a cashier on a college campus. Sometimes students would hand me dollar bills that reeked of weed, probably because it was in the same pocket. I'd open the cash drawer at the end of the day and the whole thing smelled like weed. I'm sure my hands were covered with more than a couple billionths of a gram of the stuff. This new test is useless if it's just going to get thrown out in court (nevermind the fact that I think it's useless anyway because marijuana should be decriminalized).
  • wettestwillie, on 08/08/2008, -31/+9The only people who wouldn't like this are people who smoke. Anyone can see how much of an improvement this is over current methods of testing.
    • nkleffman, on 08/08/2008, -5/+19Or people that value privacy and freedom.

      But maybe you're right, after all, the government is only looking after our best interests. If you have nothing to hide, why worry?
    • esfisher, on 08/08/2008, -4/+11If by "improvement" you mean an efficient expansion of the police state, then yes.
    • notanidiot, on 08/08/2008, -4/+7Improvement? Its much more expensive and doesn't necessarily suggest usage, rather just that you've handled pot.
    • MattB123, on 08/08/2008, -4/+8Or anyone concerned with civil liberties or privacy. But who cares about that stuff anymore anyway?
  • boardthis, on 08/08/2008, -3/+6well *****...
    get to work on a cover-up hackers!
    • dlite922, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1uh ya, it's called rubber gloves. very cheap.

      Dealers will probably start selling them. If this takes off you'll see rubber gloves as much as there are lighters to a cigarette

    • Derrekito, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1GOO-BE-GONE?
  • zdiddy85, on 08/08/2008, -0/+23*cuts off fingers*
    • LogicBomB, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4"We show here that your horribly disfigured stumps have traces of..."
    • BrosDuCK, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Then how will you roll?
      • dannydyer1000, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1I'll tell you how! VOLCANOOOOOOOOOO~
  • nkleffman, on 08/08/2008, -2/+48"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
    • demiurgency, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7Awesome. I'm reading that right now.
      • nkleffman, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Me too, I'm 700 pages in and I can't put it down. This is my first Ayn Rand book and I know I'm going to end up reading all of her works.
      • solidcube, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2What book is this from?
      • NewPatriot, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5atlas shrugged...........i think
    • Gonthim, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Well chosen.
    • 2facetious, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Yeah, I just reread it the other day myself. That's when I get freaked out, when reality starts reminding me of Atlas Shrugged or 1984 or A Brave New World....too bad if we all decided to run away and leave the world to the morons, they would find us, call us a cult, and kill us all......
      • Metasquares, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I don't exactly think Ayn Rand had "the weed smokers" in mind as the group that was going on strike. The entire premise that made the strike work was that the group that was vilified was supporting society and vilified *for* the actions by which they supported society. Unless you can make a case that weed smoking is somehow foundational to human progress, I don't think the government would care if you, as a group, went on strike.

        And don't tell me that all productive people do it or that it's somehow intrinsic to productivity. I know some very productive and accomplished people, none of whom smoke *anything*. (I already know what the reply to this is going to be, and no, these are not the sort of people who would do it privately either).
      • nkleffman, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Metasquares,

        While I admit that Atlas Shrugged is the first Rand book I've read, I believe that her premise isn't based on productivity. This is number 3 from her definition of Objectivism:

        "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life"

        Some smoke weed in pursuit of their own happiness. It's not just about being productive, it's also about not buying into all of the socialist / communist ideology.
  • feliks2, on 08/08/2008, -5/+5Oh *****!
  • mattrmcg, on 08/08/2008, -4/+12For some reason, all those twenties I handle say I have done cocaine...
    • sirjoebob, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I saw something about this once. Something like 90% of American money contains traces of cocaine... so, f they use this on someone who just handled a bunch of cash, could they put them away?
      • Protoss, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Well no, just like they can't put you away for smelling like pot. That would give them probable cause to search, and if they find something, then put you away.
  • Dumbledorito, on 08/08/2008, -2/+17The trouble with the "explosives" bit is how many common things are used in explosives. A buddy of mine discovered that a lot of the cheap carpet he uses at his workplace (the kind used at convention halls) is made of the same stuff they use in bombs/shells to "fill" the chamber holding the explosive charge or warhead. He thinks he's on a couple of watch lists now, thanks to the TSA going nuts over his shoes at the airport.
  • OfNumbers, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Yeah, and K9's can smell all of those things on your license as well.
  • Mr.Gone, on 08/08/2008, -4/+29EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
  • Rudegar, on 08/08/2008, -3/+7then they dont even have to look at my doobie :P
  • rocknrollninja, on 08/08/2008, -3/+9This is not such a big deal. All they have to do is check for Dorito or Cheeto Powder
  • RevalationX, on 08/08/2008, -7/+1I don't think you can get in trouble for use, but you can get in trouble if they know you use and you get in a car accident or anything of that sort they just blame it on the weed. Laws vary by state and country though.
  • Erythroxylum, on 08/08/2008, -14/+4To be fair, there are far easier ways of identifying weed smokers. Look for the person buying 5 Big Macs at a time or concentrating hard on something simple or espousing naive opinions or masturbating a lot or wearing a *****-eating grin on their face.

    But, how dare they infringe my basic human right to break the law! How, very, very dare they.
    • phibit, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5Hey!!! Be careful what you say about masturbation. Let's not start saying things we don't mean...

      You must be hysterical.
    • OfNumbers, on 08/08/2008, -1/+8I get the feeling you've been penting those feelings up inside for a while now.
    • shutaro, on 08/08/2008, -2/+4Indeed... His knuckles will be white from inner tension and his pants will be crusted with semen from constantly jacking off when he can't find a rape victim.
  • phibit, on 08/08/2008, -2/+19Now a bunch of diggers are going to be walking around with latex gloves on 24/7.
    • d1sturbdapeace, on 08/08/2008, -3/+6That's racist. Oh...nevermind.
  • sHockz, on 08/08/2008, -1/+12all this for pot smokers? why dont you just ask?
  • sdizier, on 08/08/2008, -2/+15 The question is, how many people will actually stop smoking weed because of this? I bet none.
    • glockman69, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Not me...
    • DraxusD, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Or me
    • sirjoebob, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3i just might start because of it... lol
    • tykwondingo, on 08/08/2008, -0/+50 divided by ooOH SHI--
    • Akufen, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Why would you stop? If anyone, be it your boss, or your family, makes a problem out of it, it's out of ignorance and not worth the aggrevation. In fact, bring it up after you served them a beer or another drink and see them struggle with their own hipocrisy.

      Good family fun!
  • borez, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Then what? This technique will expose one hell of a lot of London City workers, coke use is rife down there.
  • markperia, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Only possession and distribution is illegal in most states. You cannot be prosecuted for having traces of it in your fingers. Even if you still have the smoke in your lungs, as long as the joint is not in your hands, you can't be prosecuted.
    • Whackly, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2no but you could lose you job. hell, with this method you wouldn't evem know you were being drug tested. they'd just roll up and test you desk when you aren't around.
      • markperia, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1well its your problem if you smoke it at work. Smoke it after work or before work, not during.
      • Atomic1fire, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Or just do the legal thing, you know.. not smoking pot.
        Cant prosecute if you don't smoke pot, and chances are, I'm less paranoid then you because of the lack of drug use
      • Whackly, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1actually, atomic, this particular test doesn't determine whether you smoke pot. it determines whether you have any of the relevant chemicals on your figers. have you handled cash or touched anything that doesn't specifically belong to you and isn't kept in a bubble boy style clean room? anyway... screw the legal thing. maybe they could just do the right thing and legalize it.
    • tillerman00, on 08/08/2008, -2/+6What if I blow that lungsmoke in the cop's face then kick him in the nuts and urinate on his writhing body?

      It's a rhetorical question.
      • Lythium, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2You're looking at something like aggravated assault, I should think. Once they have you in custody, of course, they can always go the extra step and plant something nasty on you.
      • Whackly, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1What if you weren't such a dork?
      • tillerman00, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Dork? What, did you write that during recess at your elementary school?
      • Whackly, on 08/10/2008, -1/+1no, but sometimes people are dorks. they don't warrant the effort of manufacturing creative insults. they are just dorks.
    • endlessoul, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Heh. You seem to forget that we as Americans no longer have the right to due process.

      We can be arrested for anything and jailed forever without a single charge brought against us. No lawyer, no phone call.
    • tykwondingo, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3In AZ you can be arrested for doing drugs retroactively. If you get pulled over and a cop decides he doesn't like you, he can order a blood test and if you come up positive, you'll have jail time, a dui, lose you license, car gets impounded, when/if you get your license back you'll have to have an ignition interlock for a year or more + crazy fines... there's more but I'm too depressed to continue.
  • ironiridis, on 08/08/2008, -0/+17Title isn't accurate: it can only tell if you've somehow touched weed. If you smoke it via some method that doesn't involve contact with your hands (assuming here that this includes the smoke itself) or simply wear gloves, you're safe.
    • LogicBomB, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Because everyone here will start rolling joints or packing bongs/pipes with rubber gloves on...
    • ParanoydAndroid, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2That's not the impression I got. My understanding from they way they say they can test for traces of THC (instead of just saying they can test for traces of marijuana) is that they can find the THC in the excretions of your body, through the fingertips. They definitely say they could use that method to test for metabolized compounds for medical purposes, so they could probably do it for drugs too.
  • Picard102, on 08/08/2008, -17/+6Good, lets throw some more of these hippies in jail finally.
    • NCg8r, on 08/08/2008, -3/+7Yes! Because it's so cheap and efficient.
    • shutaro, on 08/08/2008, -3/+4Yes! Because hippies never wash their hands!
    • glockman69, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3I didn't know hippies were so dangerous that they all needed to be in jail.
    • santaliqueur, on 08/08/2008, -2/+6Yeah, let's spend more of our tax dollars on guys who want to eat and laugh, then go to bed. And get some of those guys committing violent crimes if there's any room left in the jails.
    • tykwondingo, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I call TROLL.
  • fredrockbluff, on 08/08/2008, -7/+2its not the fingerprint, its jus resin on the stoner's fingers
  • roddack, on 08/08/2008, -0/+12There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws
  • xirtap, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7"Give us your fingerprints please, we're doing um.. a.. a random.. yes a random drug test."
    • Jeremy82465, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5I am surprised more people havent commented on or dugg up this comment. I didnt really think about it at first but I totally agree, this process could be used as a guise to create a huge database of innocent people's fingerprints. Any unassuming person, the type who figures they have nothing to hide because they dont do anything wrong, would easily accept this as a random test only to have their fingerprints saved in said database, not to say they wouldnt do both at the same time. I know there are those who would say "if you have nothing to hide, why does it matter?" well if I have nothing to hide they dont need to keep my prints.
      • xhazerdusx, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5If you think our fingerprints aren't already in some database, you forget who our president is.
      • fondalashay, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1classic!
  • xsecretfiles, on 08/08/2008, -5/+4...wash your hands?

    Problem Solved.....
  • dargoesdigging, on 08/08/2008, -1/+8Since a very large number of bank notes contain traces of all sorts of drugs etc. who's to say they haven't just handled a note at some point.
    • esfisher, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Or you could spoil the results. Assuming you are not under detention at the time of fingerprinting, you could pull out a dollar bill right in front of them and make sure all your fingers touch it. That way, you could always argue that there must have been traces of the element on the money, since it's widely known that it is common.
  • Jdban, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7Just because you have traces of a drug on you does not mean you actually used it. You could have encountered weed or cocaine by touching a handrail.
    This method will not catch on or hold up in court, because it doesn't differ between use and non-use
  • omar91, on 08/08/2008, -3/+4wear gloves....
    • IveGotTheRuns, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4Or use your toes.
    • pkarpenko, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure the technology picks up excretions, not just stuff that got on your hands. Unless you're advocating the wearing of gloves ALL the time which is just plain silly.
  • MediaCrisis, on 08/08/2008, -5/+3Well. Good thing I work in web development.
  • spkrcity, on 08/08/2008, -2/+6I don't understand this. Is it because the THC secretes from my skin or is because my fingers touched weed?
  • Smokeydabear, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4"I was holding it for a friend..."
  • kinggimped, on 08/08/2008, -4/+7Hey... Pull my finger!
  • gr00vy, on 08/08/2008, -2/+18Wow. Proof that pot smoking causes paranoia.
    It will be a long time before this will be used for drug testing. This has a long way to be used as a crime fighting tool. It will help associate activity with fingerprints, but by far will be the benefit of identifying a single print out of a pile of prints. The one person that touched a known substance, foundation for instance, will show up as a single print out of many. There is no way someone is going to waste a multi thousand dollar test to catch someone that just held weed. Sheesh.
    • Corrosionx, on 08/08/2008, -7/+6It's not about catching people, it's about building a control society.
      • colincornaby, on 08/08/2008, -4/+3If you're worried about people judging you because you smoke pot, THEN DON'T SMOKE POT.

        Jesus christ. It's not that hard. No one's controlling you. If you smoke pot, then DON'T TAKE JOBS WHERE YOU WILL BE DRUG TESTED.

        It's not like they're going to come to your door and make you give your fingerprint. Should we all stop using toilets in case the government is secretly collecting our urine and testing it?
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5@colincornaby

        Don't work if you smoke pot, and don't smoke pot if you want to work? This isn't enforcing control over society? Just be a good little consumer and do everything the government says is good for you, but don't dare go outside that boundry otherwise you risk being segregated from the rest of society?

        ***** that. My boss has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do outside of work, and the government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do if I'm not hurting anyone else. The war on drugs isn't about drugs...it's about control. It's about making sure that everyone walks the very thin line, otherwise they will be viewed as criminals. And once viewed as a criminal, there is no going back. You have a perminent stain on our life, simply because the laws are so far out of sync with society. This is not right. This is not what society wants nor needs. The damage caused by this ***** war on drugs far outweighs any damage pot could ever do...
      • Corrosionx, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2colincornaby:
        I don't care if people judge me, that's their choice, but I just don't want to rot in jail or be arrested for doing something which is not a crime (just because something is illegal doesn't make it a crime, you must have a complaining party who's legal rights have been violated for there to be a crime).

        I claim my right to put whatever the hell I want in my body. And nobody has a bigger claim on my body than me, so there.

        I don't care what a bunch of men and women wrote on a piece of paper in Washington DC. I can control myself, thank you very much, and I do a much better job than them.

        The War on Drugs just gave us more drugs, the government has been destroying society a lot more than the drugs themselves. You can't prohibit a product that there's a demand for, it will corrupt society. Look at alcohol prohibition. They learned their lessons well: prohibiting products creates a black market which benefits organized crime and by extension, politicians.

        If the government was really of the people and not the mafia and lobbyists, pot would have been legalized a long time ago. The fact that it's not should tell you who's really in control.
  • etx313, on 08/08/2008, -20/+5***** you, two of my friends died from smoking weed!
    • sonar1, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2ima go ahead and bury you and give you a trophy for the 'way late meme' award.

      heres your consolation prize (marijuana kills) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDVmgUeFkE0
    • shadowfoxmi, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8and now you have no friends?
      • shutaro, on 08/08/2008, -4/+5***** you, two of my friends died from having no friends!
      • shadowfoxmi, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2if they were your friends, then how did hey die from not having no friends? were you guys on a break?
    • dopste, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2I don't want to cause you any grief, an believe me I'm not attacking you, but I have to know how your friends died smoking weed?
  • Nicoon, on 08/08/2008, -1/+10What if I were to shake the hand of a smoker?
    • ricktm, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2OMG youre right. should we should stop shaking hands now too?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.