The company has been testing the handheld equipment with the help of the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department. Darren White, speaking on behalf of the sheriff’s department, is encouraged by the potential of a new tool to determine if a motorist is driving while intoxicated. He felt the evidence gathered would also improve the prosecution’s chances of securing a conviction for DWI.

In the current United States Defense Appropriations Act, two million dollars were allocated for the development of a handheld fingerprint scanner. The technology is then expected to enter the private law enforcement sector.

Matthew Ennis, an executive with Lumidigm, projects the use of biometric technology in automobiles within a few years that can provide security and detect elevated blood alcohol content.

If you have been arrested for drunk driving, you will need to find a DWI attorney.

Adrian, MI-A woman with a blood alcohol content (BAC) three times that of the legal limit pleaded guilty to drunk driving and admitted that she had drunk three glasses of Listerine.

Carol Ries, 50, was immediately pulled over by police after she crashed into the back of a car at a stoplight. Ries admitted that she had consumed Listerine that afternoon, and police in fact found a bottle of the Pfizer-manufactured mouthwash in the woman's car.

While her BAC from a Breathalyzer test was lower than the 0.08 legal limit, a second-and less forgiving-test was administered to her with a different device. It measured her BAC at 0.30.

Listerine contains between 26.9% and 21.6% alcohol, depending on the variety.

Prosecutors have discarded a charge for having an open bottle of alcohol in the car, but Ries may still have to serve up to 93 days in Jail and a $500 fine for drunk driving.

January 21, 2005

THURSDAY, July 13 (HealthDay News) -- The war against drunk driving is turning high-tech.

Devices that can sense the amount of alcohol in the air around your face or even in your sweat are already on the drawing board, to join current technology aimed at stopping you from getting behind that wheel if you've had too much to drink, researchers say.

"People continue to drive drunk because they can," said Heidi Castle, a spokeswoman for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). "That's when technology comes into play. Technology has the potential to not allow someone who is intoxicated to operate a motor vehicle. It essentially separates the weapon -- the car -- from the drunk driver."

But even though some technology has been on the market for a generation, impaired driving is still a problem.

Last year, almost 17,000 deaths and half a million injuries were caused by drunk driving crashes in the United States.

One of the featured technologies at a recent MADD symposium was the "ignition interlock," essentially a tube connected to the vehicle ignition. The driver breathes into the tube and, if his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is over a certain threshold, the system prevents the car from starting.

"This is the gold standard," said Paul Marques, senior research scientist with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), a nonprofit public health research institute.

"As far as deterrents or prevention, this is probably the most common," Castle added.

"We have 20 years' experience with interlock, but it's underutilized," Marques said. "It won't have an impact on impaired driving unless it's used."

The problem in the United States is getting courts to order it.

With 1.4 million DUI arrests every year, no more than 100,000 interlocks are being used. Studies have shown that the device results in a 65 percent reduction in recidivism.

A number of other futuristic technologies are also on the horizon. Among them:

Transdermal alcohol sensors, such as SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor), to measure alcohol that is lost through the skin through sweat. The gadget, worn as an ankle bracelet, "sniffs" every 30 minutes and transfers data via a wireless connection to a probation officer or other law-enforcement official. Passive sensors to sample the air around a person's face, usually without the person knowing it. The sensor can be hidden in a police officer's flashlight and, if it senses alcohol, represents probable cause for more sobriety tests. A 2.5-ounce device to monitor the movements of someone convicted of drunk driving. Worn as a bracelet or anklet, this gadget uses global positioning system technology to alert law-enforcement personnel if an offender has entered a bar or gone someplace he shouldn't. It's part of the Southwest Riverside County (Calif.) "Watch Your Step" program. Near-infrared spectroscopy to determine blood alcohol composition under the skin. These devices would go into every car and be totally passive -- in other words, the driver wouldn't need to do anything, even breathe into a tube. The device is still in development and is being used by former U.S. Defense Department physicists. "It's totally unaffordable today," Marques noted. But technology can only do so much to combat drunk driving.

"When you're talking about drunk driving, there's no silver bullet," Castle said. "What we need is a comprehensive solution. One of the main components is law enforcement, but we will likely never have enough police officers on the street to arrest every drunk driver."

Marques added: "Drunk driving is a slowly unfolding tragedy that doesn't get better. Technology can help, but we can't do it without a human program."

More information

MADD has more on drunk driving.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/

28 Jun 2004, 16:13 UTC

John Birchard

One of the most stubborn highway safety issues around the world is fatalities caused by drunk drivers. Here in the United States, 40 percent of traffic deaths last year involved alcohol-impaired drivers.

Growing concern about drunk-driving in Sweden and many other countries has prompted Saab to develop a device called Alco-key. It's a miniature alcohol-sensing device that would be built into the car's key fob, and it works off already-existing anti-theft technology.

"After you unlock your car, you then blow into the breath-sensing device in the end of the key and it reads the blood-alcohol content of your breath and determines whether or not you're fit to drive, based upon a pre-programmed threshold that is set into the system," said Saab's Kevin Smith, describing the procedure for using it.

The breath sample passes down a small internal tube containing a semi-conductor sensor the size of a pin-head. The sample is analyzed and a small green or red light on the fob lights up. The green light signals you're good to go. A red light means the anti-theft engine immobilizer is active and your Saab is not, and won't be until the time limit is past and you get another chance. Or another, non-drinking driver takes over.

Saab spokesman Kevin Smith says there are several groups who might be interested in the pocket-sized Alco-key.

"A company might want to have this device on their company car fleet of vehicles because it puts a good corporate face forward to the public," he said. "They are concerned about public safety. It's also protective of their own employees."

A second group that could be customers, says Kevin Smith, is parents of young drivers.

"Another potential might be parents that are perhaps putting their child into their first car or sending their child away to college," said Mr. Smith. "Most parents like to send their children to college in a good, safe car to drive and this would raise the level of safety even further."

Saab is currently conducting tests on the prototype to verify its reliability and accuracy. The software controlling the engine immobilizer can be adjusted to the blood-alcohol limits where the car is registered. In commercial production, the Alco-key would cost about $300, which is a fraction of the cost of a fixed system installed inside the car.

Kevin Smith says it's too early to say when the Alco-key may be ready for sale.

"They've brought it far enough along in its development at this point that they intend to show this new Saab Alco-key technology to the world and demonstrate how it functions for the first time in August at a safety seminar in Sweden," he explained.

If all goes well, it's intended that the Alco-key will be available as an accessory through Saab dealers.

Major car manufacturers such as Nissan Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. are looking to equip their vehicles with a system to prevent drunk-driving, sources said.

Nissan reportedly is looking to implement a system to prevent an engine from starting when a certain amount of alcohol is detected on the driver's breath. Toyota also has begun discussing an anti-drunk driving system.

However, manufacturers face a variety of problems in implementing the system such as the cost and legal regulations.

Car manufacturers believe measures against drunk driving are necessary at a time when many drunk drivers are causing traffic accidents. (Mainichi)

Source: http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp

TOKYO — Nissan is developing a new system to stop drunk drivers from starting their vehicles, according to a report in Japanese newspaper Nihon Keizai Shimbun. The system is said to be similar to the immobilizers used in the United States as part of some drunk-driving sentences.

Additionally, the system may be combined with a camera that monitors the driver for drowsiness. The automaker did not spell out a timetable for putting the anti-DUI technology on the market.

Saab and Volvo have been leading similar research efforts — in part because Sweden has tough drunk-driving laws.

Source: http://www.edmunds.com

MIAMI - Timothy Muldowny's lawyers decided on an unconventional approach to fight his drunken driving case: They sought computer programming information for the Intoxilyzer alcohol breath analysis machine to see whether his test was accurate.

Their strategy paid off.

The company that makes the Intoxilyzer refused to reveal the computer source code for its machine because it was a trade secret. A county judge tossed out Muldowny's alcohol breath test - a crucial piece of evidence in a DUI case - and the ruling was upheld by an appeals court in 2004.

Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/

Santa Fe, NM-The California Department of Motor Vehicles' (CA DMV) has sparked a controversy with their latest report, which states "there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders." Ignition interlock devices (IID) are attached to the car's ignition and require the driver to perform a Breathalyzer test before the ignition can be turned on.

The report found that IIDs increase chance of crash by up to 130%, and concluded that the use of IIDs should not be condoned.

The controversy centers around the usage of the findings in a March press release from the American Beverage Institute (ABI), an association of restaurants committed to responsibly serving alcoholic beverages. The New Mexico legislature and governor will soon decide on the state's proposed law to implement IIDs in DUI cases. They have been presented with the ABI press release.

The California DMV and anti-alcohol lobbyists focused on findings in the report that counterbalance the critique of IIDs, despite that such findings were not applicable to the new law. ABI has accused the DMV of glossing over the pertinent issue that interlocks can bring undesirable consequences on the roads-particularly accidents.

The report's primary writer, David DeYoung, clarified the DMV's stance on the matter in a subsequent press release, saying, "It's true that we found court orders to install an ignition interlock device have no significant effect in preventing repeat DUIs among first-time DUI offenders."

March 21, 2005

Also See:

• The California DMV's Response

You may view a complete copy of the CA DMV Ignition Interlock report (PDF
download).

• An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California (September, 2004)
• An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California (May, 2002)

The U.S. Government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) maintains a " Conforming Products List" (PDF download) of breath alcohol devices approved for law enforcement use. Interlocks that meet the NHTSA standards not only require a test to start the engine, but also require a test every few minutes while driving - a "rolling or running retest." This type of test prevents an individual other than the driver from starting the car and then allowing an impaired driver to drive the vehicle. (NHTSA guidelines for most regions call for only one subsequent test). Ignition interlocks can be difficult to circumvent when properly installed and monitored regularly.

The amount of time an individual is required to have ignition interlock on his or her car varies based on prior offenses and other restrictions. See which states require ignition interlocks.

Steps for using an Ignition Interlock:

• Get in car and put on seatbelt.
• Push button on Ignition Interlock.
• Wait for confirmation messages to appear.
• Blow into mouthpiece.
• Wait for "pass" (or "fail") confirmation messages to appear.
• If "pass", place keys in ignition and start vehicle.

Also See:

• What is a Breathalyzer?
• DUI Punishments and Consequences

Related Libraries:

• Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC)
• Drunk Driving Prevention
• Legal

Related Links:

• State DUI Information
• DUI Lawyers
• SR-22 Auto Insurance Quote
• Criminal and DMV Records

The Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Breath-alcohol detectors installed in the cars of convicted drunken drivers prevented them from driving under the influence more than 10,000 times in the first year of Pennsylvania's Ignition Interlock Law, according to a study.

Drivers must pass a breath test before the system will allow them to start their vehicles, and they must periodically test themselves throughout their drives.

Their blood-alcohol level must be below 0.025 percent - less than a quarter of the legal limit - to keep the car running.

After three lockouts, the driver must pay to have the car taken to a certified service center in order to have the system reset.

Under Pennsylvania's law, drivers whose licenses have been suspended for two years may get the licenses back after one year if they agree to have the interlock device installed in their vehicle.

From Oct. 1, 2001, to Sept. 30, 2002, 1,855 of the 18,600 eligible DUI offenders chose that option, according to the report by the Pennsylvania DUI Association, which was contracted to evaluate the system.

The interlocks' internal logs showed the devices kept those drivers from driving drunk 10,142 times, the report said.

Pennsylvania is one of the first states to complete a comprehensive evaluation of its ignition interlock program, and other states may soon look to Pennsylvania as an example.

Jason King, a spokesman for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, said he wasn't aware of other figures demonstrating the effectiveness of the devices.

It has sometimes been difficult to track the success of ignition interlock programs, said Dr. James Frank, a psychologist in the office of research and technology with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"The information that comes back to us is very anecdotal," he said.

Pennsylvania started its program in 2000, and participants started using the devices in October 2001, said Dave Holt, assistant manager of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's alcohol highway safety administration. Holt said he hopes the program will be made mandatory after a one-year suspension.

The main complaints about the program so far have involved drivers having to figure out how to get the machine to work, said Anthony Tassoni, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania DUI Association.

"There's an extremely large learning curve," Tassoni said. There are five types of approved ignition interlock devices, with some requiring the driver to just inhale or exhale, while some require the driver to exhale while humming.

Forty other states and the District of Columbia have some form of ignition interlock law, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

New Mexico's ignition interlock law went into effect Jan. 1, so transportation officials there said they are just starting to work out their system - and they're keeping an eye on what Pennsylvania is doing.

"We're going back to change the law to have some fixes," said Virginia Jaramillo, chief of the traffic safety bureau of the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation. "I'll probably be calling them to see how it worked for them."

Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Sacramento, CA-The California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV) says a March 15th press release from the American Beverage Institute (ABI) misrepresented the results of a new DMV study of the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing the incidence of driving under the influence.

The ABI press release said "dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by 130%." DMV officials said that statement seriously misrepresents the published conclusions of their study.

"It's true that we found court orders to install an ignition interlock device have no significant effect in preventing repeat DUIs among first-time DUI offenders," said the report's lead author, David DeYoung. "But what the ABI press release completely omitted was our finding that when second-time offenders install the device in order to be able to drive with a restricted license, they have a significantly lower risk of repeat DUI incidents - a 41 percent reduction. Since DUI repeat offenders are a major cause of U.S. highway deaths, this misrepresentation by the ABI press release greatly concerns the California DMV.

"In quoting our finding that DUI second offenders using the device have a 130% higher risk of a subsequent crash, ABI seems to imply that the device itself somehow increases the likelihood of a crash. That is not what we said. It is not that installation and use of interlocks causes crashes or that the devices themselves are unsafe," said DeYoung. "Obviously if someone who has previously been forbidden to drive is allowed to return legally to the roadways with an ignition interlock and a restricted driver license, their exposure to accidents increases, no matter how sober they are."

The ABI release quoted the DMV report as saying: "Because there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders, the use of the devices should not be emphasized." But the ABI release neglected to mention that the DMV report specifically stated that the devices "are effective in reducing subsequent DUI convictions."

DeYoung, manager of alcohol and drug projects in DMV's Research & Development unit, said: "We are concerned because the ABI press release quotes our report out of context, presents incorrect information and misstates the findings of our report so completely that the entire tenor of the ABI release is seriously inconsistent with what the report actually says. We are especially concerned because the ABI release uses that misrepresentation as a pretext for urging legislators to "abandon" any attempts to require the devices before a third offense. On the contrary, the DMV report specifically stated that requiring second offenders to install the device if they want to be able to drive with a restricted license significantly reduces further DUIs."

DeYoung added: "It's true that our study showed that court orders to first offenders to install an ignition interlock device are not effective in reducing recidivism among that group - perhaps because many first offenders tend to be in denial, resent the devices and refuse to install them. But the ABI press release completely omits our finding that the devices can have a real effect on repeat offenders who are beginning to come to grips with their alcohol problem and who often find the mechanical devices to be helpful in keeping them out of cars when they've been drinking. We urge judges, police, alcohol rehabilitation experts and anyone concerned about the nation's increasing death toll from drinking drivers to study our report."

Under current law, California judges are required to order ignition interlocks for drivers convicted of driving while suspended, if the license was suspended for DUI. Judges may order interlocks for first-time DUI offenders with high blood alcohol levels at time of arrest, and for repeat DUI offenders. In addition, there is an administrative program where repeat DUI offenders can, after serving half their license suspension period, install an interlock and obtain a restricted driver license from DMV.

March 21, 2005

Also See:

• Criticism of Ignition Interlock Devices from the California DMV

View a complete copy of the CA DMV Ignition Interlock report (PDF download):

• An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California (September, 2004)
• An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California (May, 2002)

Related Links:

• California DUI Library
• California DUI Lawyers

DMV REPORTS ON IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE LAW

The state Department of Motor Vehicles recently released Part I of a two-part study of the scope of implementation and effectiveness of California’s Ignition Interlock Device (IID) law. The IID law, as amended in 1998, requires a person who is convicted of driving on a DUI-suspended driver’s license to install an IID on any vehicle that the person owns or operates. (AB 762, Stats. 1998, ch. 756.) In addition, the law authorizes, but does not require, the court to order installation of an IID upon conviction of a DUI. Repeat DUI offenders can apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for a restricted driver’s license after serving half of their license suspension period if they install an IID.

An IID is a device connected to the ignition of a motor vehicle consisting of a unit that tests an individual’s alcohol breath level. A driver with this device on his or her car is unable to start the vehicle before providing a breath sample. If the sample exceeds permissible levels of alcohol, the IID locks the motor vehicle’s ignition and prevents operation of the vehicle.

The 1998 legislation required the DMV to evaluate the degree to which the IID law has been implemented in California, and whether IIDs are effective in reducing DUI recidivism. The DMV’s study shows that, while court-ordered IIDs have increased, implementation of the law is “still weak.†Three concerns have been identified as a barrier to implementation: (1) many offenders are unable to pay for an IID; (2) many offenders have no vehicle; (3) monitoring offenders who are ordered to install an IID is time-consuming and difficult.

The study concluded that IIDs have not been successfully implemented in California. It indicates, however, that a modified program might be successful if there was a way to fund the devices for indigent offenders, deal with offenders who have no vehicle, and restructure the monitoring of offenders who are ordered to install IIDs.

The study strongly recommends that California’s IID program not be further modified until the second part of the two-part study is completed. Implementation of the current law continues to improve and valuable information will be forthcoming with the second part of the study, which will evaluate the effectiveness of the IID in California.

In addition to the official DMV report, the California Association of Ignition Interlock Service Professionals (IID vendors) also produced a report in December 2002 of an informal survey conducted by their association. That report was distributed to, among others, members of the Legislature, the Judicial Council, and the Commission on Judicial Performance. In this report and in recent news articles, IID vendors have criticized the courts for not ordering IIDs more often.

For a copy and further updates on this story see:
DUI.com update 3/26/05

Effects
.04	Speech Impairment
	Commercial Impairment Levels
.05	Legal Presumption Starts
.08	Legal Definition of Under the Influence
.10	Accident Curve rises to 6X's More Likely
.14	20X's More Likely to Have Accident
.16	35X's More Likely to Have Accident
.20	Stumbling
.30	Vomiting, Passing Out
.40	Coma
.50	Coma, Death
.60	Death
Rate of Absorption
60-90 Minutes All Alcohol Absorbed Empty Stomach 50% in 15 Minutes Full Stomach 50% in 40 Minutes Mixed Drinks More Carbon Dioxide Health of Stomach Lining Small Intestines Absorb 80% of Alcohol Stomach 20% Aborption Males 58% Water in Blood Females 48% Water in Blood

How much/little can I drink?

* The numbers reflect the BAC for a 160 lbs. lean man, per

8pm - 9pm - 2 drinks = 3.8/175 =.0217 = .0434

9pm - 11pm - 2 drinks = .0434 + .0434 - .03 =.0568

11pm - 1am - 3 drinks = .0651 + .0568 - .03 = .0919

Elimination

10 percent excreted by breath, sweat, and urine
90 Metabolism

Calculating Blood Alcohol Content

1. Divide 3.8 by your body weight (3.8/body weight)

2. the quotient is equivalent to one drink

3. calculate your alcohol quotient

Additional Information: Blood Alcohol Chart

Series: NIJ Research in Brief Published: October 1995 Tom Mieczkowski, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of Criminology, University of South Florida.

Copies of the unpublished full report prepared for NIJ grant #92-IJ-CX-K010, "Hair Assays for Drugs of Abuse in a Probation Population: Implementation of a Pilot Study in a Correctional Field Setting," by Tom Mieczkowski, Ph.D., Richard A. Newel, Gail Allison, and Shirley Coletti, are available on interlibrary loan or as photocopies for a minimal fee. Call NCJRS, 800-851-3420; ask for NCJ 152420.

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: An NIJ-sponsored study of the viability and effectiveness of testing hair samples for drug use among probationers, which was conducted with the assistance of correctional officers from divisions of the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Field Services.

Key issues: Because urine testing of drug offenders is known to be particularly burdensome, a pilot study was developed to determine whether hair assays, which are noninvasive and have a larger window of detection, could be more effective. Over a 6-month period, volunteer probationers were tested for a variety of substances. Researchers also questioned the field officers about their opinions as to the usefulness of the testing.

Key findings: Researchers used both methods to test for cocaine, opiates, marijuana, and other drugs. Among their findings:

• Hair analysis is a better indicator of cocaine use over an extended timeframe and can more accurately identify a chronic drug user. Urine analysis, on the other hand, is better able to measure short-term exposure to cocaine.
• Urine analysis seems to be a better way to detect opiates, particularly the presence of codeine. Hair assays are designed to detect morphine-based compounds.
• Both hair and urine tests appear to have equal effect in detecting the presence of marijuana.
• Hair and urine testing can complement one another because of their capacity to expose different patterns of drug use.
• The field officers agreed that hair testing for drugs can be beneficial in their efforts to manage their cases and to track drug use over a longer time period. Most of the officers agreed that gathering hair for tests was less difficult than collecting urine samples.

Target audience: Probation/parole officers, law enforcement officials, policymakers, and researchers.

Testing hair samples for drugs of abuse may offer certain advantages over urine testing methodologies. Drugs and drug metabolites remain sequestered in the hair shaft indefinitely, thus providing detection during a much larger "window" (approximately 60 days of use can be seen in one inch of hair) than drug levels in urine, which decrease rapidly, through excretion, over a short period of time (generally within 48 to 72 hours). From an operational standpoint, the collection, transportation, preservation, and storage of nonseptic and inert hair samples are simple processes and relatively noninvasive when compared to those associated with collecting observed urine specimens.

An NIJ-sponsored pilot study assessed the feasibility and effectiveness of doing hair assays in a probationary field setting and the attitude of probation officers regarding hair testing.

Recruitment and retention of probationers

Twenty-two correctional officers from divisions of the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Field Services voluntarily participated in this study. Officer-volunteers were asked to solicit from each of their caseloads 8-10 volunteers who were currently undergoing at least monthly urine testing. A simple hair collection procedure was incorporated into the officers' appointment routine, but no information on the outcome of the hair assays was used in any aspect of case management. At each appointment the officers collected a urine specimen and a hair specimen from the probationer.

Of the 152 volunteer probationers initially recruited for the project, 91 participated for the entire 6-month collection period, and complete specimens were collected for 89. The study cohort was predominantly male (72 men versus 19 women) and white (87 Caucasians, 3 African Americans, and 1 Hispanic were represented). Researchers attributed the low number of African- American participants to demographics of Pinellas and Pasco county regions (only about 7 percent of the population in these counties is African-American), as well as to the fact that young African-American males were likely to have extremely short head hair; the project did not attempt to retrieve body hair samples.

Hair and urine specimens were conjointly analyzed for cocaine, opiates, cannabinoids, PCP, and methadone. Cutoff values for hair analysis (2 ng/10 mg for cocaine and heroin, and .05 ng/10 mg for cannabinoids) were recommended by the testing laboratory, and NIDA-established cutoffs (300 ml/150 for cocaine, 300 ml/300 for heroin, and 100 ml/15 for marijuana) were used for urinalysis.

Outcomes of hair and urine assays

Complete sets of hair and urine specimens were obtained from 89 probationers. Of these, 36 were negative on both hair and urine assays, and 33 were positive on both hair and urine assays. In 12 cases, probationers tested negative on the urine assays and positive on the hair assays; in 8 cases, probationers tested positive on the urine assays and negative on the hair assays. Of the 89 complete cases, 53 had a positive assay on at least one hair or urine sample. A slightly higher number of drug-positive cases was detected in the hair assays (45) than in the urine assays (41).

Cocaine. The main criteria for measuring effectiveness of cocaine detection in this study were the ability of hair analysis to identify periodic or chronic exposure to the drug and the ability of urinalysis to measure acute or short-term exposure. Of the 89 completed cases, there were none in which a probationer's urine specimen tested cocaine-positive and hair specimen tested cocaine-negative. This pattern, according to the study, suggests that hair analysis is effective in identifying periodic cocaine exposure.

Opiates. The research team was interested in evaluating the detection of chronic opiate use by analysis of hair and comparing those findings to the outcomes of urinalysis and any self-reports for opiates. Two problems arose, however. The major limitation was that there were very few opiate-positive cases within the sample. Secondly, the hair assay for opiates is somewhat more limited than urinalysis; the hair assay was not designed to detect codeine while the urine assay did detect codeine. Thus, the two assays were not comparable.

Opiates were much less prevalent than cocaine or marijuana. Of all subjects in the study, only 11 had one or more opiate-positive hair samples, and 14 had opiate-positive urine samples. These findings include five cases in which urine samples were positive for opiates but the corresponding hair assays were opiate-negative. In one of these five cases, three opiates were detected in urine samples, but none were detected in hair. In the four remaining cases, the urine-positive, hair-negative outcomes appeared at either the first or the fifth or sixth urine samples. Several interpretations of these data are possible. The hair assay may be less effective for opiates than for other drugs. Alternatively, the urine assay may be detecting the presence of codeine from abused medicinals, while the hair assays (which detect morphine-based compounds) show a negative because the person has not consumed heroin or morphine.

Possibly the opiates were near or under the limit of detection in the hair assays; or, in the cases where the urine-positive result occurred at the end of the study (i.e., in the fifth or sixth sample), the hair may not have had sufficient time to emerge above the scalp (i.e., the sample was taken too early relative to the time the drug was consumed).

Marijuana. Marijuana was the most prevalent drug detected within the sample group by either type of assay. When considering all cases (completed or not), 53 marijuana cases accounted for a total of 149 marijuana-positive hair samples (out of a total of 503 hair assays and 690 urine assays. The most likely outcome for any completed case, over the full 6-month period, was that the hair and urine assays for marijuana would be concordant, though not necessarily for the same timeframe. For example, of the 89 completed cases, in 33 at least 1 positive assay for a drug occurred in at least 1 specimen (either hair, urine, or both). Of those 33 cases, 24 had a marijuana-positive assay. Of those 24, 16 had a marijuana-positive assay in hair only; 3 had a marijuana-positive assay in urine only. This suggests that, generally speaking, the hair assay for marijuana is about equal in effect to the urine assay. It does not show the enhanced detection capability that appears to be true for cocaine assays, but the researchers believe that this result is to be expected. Marijuana may be detected in urine for a relatively long period of time (compared to cocaine), and one would not expect as dramatic a departure in detection rates for a drug with long urine retention times.

Other drugs. There were no detections of PCP or methadone in the sample group.

Participant opinions and experiences

Field officers. Participating officers varied widely in their estimates of the degree of probationer drug involvement among their cases; the mean value of estimated drug-user cases was 38.8 percent (s.d. = 18.6 percent). This was quite accurate since 40.4 percent of the participating probationers had one or more positive assays (either hair, urine, or both). If urinalysis alone were used, only 9.8 percent of these probationers would have been detected as positive. Nearly all officers supported the concept and practice of probationary drug testing, when properly conducted. Most officers said that collecting hair samples was less burdensome than collecting urine specimens. The researchers observed that officers were readily able to collect, package, and transport hair samples and to obtain probationers' cooperation.

Many officers perceived hair testing as a way to manage their cases more effectively. For example, their ability to sort a series of drug-positive clients into rank order categories such as "heavily," "moderately," or "casually" exposed would be enhanced, as would their capability to track drug use retrospectively (especially cocaine) over a longer timeframe.

Probationers. Probationers ranged in age from 17 to 53 years, with a mean age of 29.63 years (s.d. = 7.81) and a median age of 29 years. Drug possession was the single most frequent offense charged against this group, with drug sales, assault, and larceny following closely behind.

Probationers were asked about their lifetime drug habits. When asked about cocaine, 45.5 percent admitted some lifetime use; 35.5 percent admitted monthly use; and 28.8 percent admitted weekly or greater use. Regarding marijuana, 71.1 percent admitted some lifetime use.

Implications

The researchers suggest that hair assay technology could usefully be combined with urine testing in probation population management. For example, hair testing could be used as an initial screen for the identification of long patterns of drug use, especially cocaine. Individuals with indications of severe drug involvement could be placed on appropriate treatment and monitoring, utilizing both urine and hair testing, for example. Those who indicate a low level of exposure and whose claims are consistent with assay results might be assigned to a less intensive protocol involving, for example, hair testing every 60 days supplemented by a random urine testing requirement. Under such a system, the data of this project indicate that the detection of users will be enhanced and will conform more closely to the self-reported levels of use and the probation officers' expectations of use.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Where does EE come from? While there’s some evidence that small amounts are formed inside cells as metabolic intermediaries or products, mostly it’s manufactured in the mobile fermentation vat known as your gut. Some of the tiny things that live in there, especially yeasts, are constantly munching ingested carbs and churning out booze. The body absorbs this normally modest volume of EE and it goes straight to the liver, where it’s metabolized. Barring unusual circumstances, very little EE makes it to the rest of the body.

To get a significant BAC from EE alone would require increased fermentation, diminished ability to metabolize alcohol, or (probably) both. In Japan since the 1950s there have been dozens of published case reports of people feeling drunk after eating carbohydrates such as rice, a condition called meitei-sho or, in English, auto-brewery syndrome. You’re thinking: great—free sake. Not quite. It comes with a price.

In almost every case in one review, intestinal overgrowth of candida or other yeasts was identified as the cause. Most patients had undergone some sort of gastrointestinal surgery—such procedures sometimes result in increased fermentation thanks to blind loops left in the intestine, where microbes can eat and multiply undisturbed. In most cases not involving prior surgery, some other abnormality was noted, such as low stomach acidity.

Auto-brewery syndrome has never been convincingly reported outside Japan. Why? It’s all about enzymes. When the liver processes ethanol, the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase first converts it to acetaldehyde. In most people a second enzyme, aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), quickly converts the acetaldehyde to harmless acetate. But roughly 50 percent of Japanese and other east Asians and some American Indians (but practically no Europeans or Africans) have a mutated gene that impairs ALDH activity. In these people, even a modest dose of alcohol, imbibed or endogenous, leads to acetaldehyde buildup and unpleasant symptoms: facial flushing, palpitations, dizziness, nausea, headache and confusion. As acetaldehyde builds up, some is converted back to ethanol, retarding BAC decline. Eventually various enzymes slowly clear the acetaldehyde and the symptoms dissipate. People on drugs such as Antabuse that inhibit ALDH activity might also be subject to meitei-sho, but so far that hasn’t been documented.

What’s likely happening in the Japanese cases is a combination of high carb intake (which the Japanese diet is famous for), yeast infection and a limited ability to metabolize the alcohol produced—any of these alone probably won’t do the trick. My guess is that even without considering their BAC, auto-brewery sufferers might be in no condition to drive, since they’d be under the influence of acetaldehyde.

The legal implications of all this vary. Generally, driving while impaired for any reason (including tiredness or taking legal medications) is against the law. Ignorance that you’re impaired, which arguably might apply in the case of auto-brewery syndrome, isn’t necessarily a defense—impaired-driving laws in many states don’t require the element of intent. As a practical matter, the potential consequences of EE are of greatest concern to those subject to so-called zero-tolerance laws—mainly drivers under 21, who may face sanctions for driving with a BAC greater than zero, .01, or .02 percent, depending on the state. Those with candidiasis and low ALDH activity (for genetic or pharmaceutical reasons) can exceed those levels. If that describes you, maybe you should think seriously about that skateboard. If not, disregard the wacky factlets and remember that only knuckleheads drink and drive.

Comments, questions? Take it up with Cecil on the Straight Dope Message Board, StraightDope.com, or write him at the Chicago Reader, 11 E. Illinois, Chicago 60611.

Source: http://www.slweekly.com/

"Hey you! Yeah, you – having a few drinks? Then listen up! Think you had one to many? Then it's time to call a cab or call a sober friend for a ride home. It sure is safer and a hell of a lot cheaper than a DWI. Make the smart choice tonight: don't drink and drive".

This is what men drinking at bars in Nassau County are going to be hearing soon. Is this a concerned friend or responsible bartender talking? No. It’s the urinal in the men’s room.

"There is no more of a captive audience than a man at a urinal" says Dr. Richard Deutsch, the bioengineer who invented and patented the Wizmark Urinal Communicator, a plastic deodorizing recording device that will play the recording when censors reveal that the urinal has a visitor. "PSA messages have historically been bland with documented marginal impact. This will get people talking about the contents of a PSA message like never before,†he said.

The Nassau County Police Traffic Safety Division has initiated a pilot program to distribute the devices for free throughout the County. The program is to be funded by fines collected from DWI offenders.

A major proponent of the program has been Marge Lee, a DWI-crash survivor and director of DEDICATEDD, a grass roots DWI victims’ advocacy organization.

Venues eligible for the devices will include rest rooms in bars, restaurants, concerts, sports stadiums, highway road stops and schools.

Source: http://www.northender.com/