Marijuana Breathalyzer Test Could Be Coming Soon

[Jacob Redmond]

A new invention may soon make it easier for police who pull over risky drivers to test them for marijuana impairment on the spot, in addition to the usual alcohol breath test.

A marijuana breathalyzer will begin clinical trials early next year, the Oakland, California-based Hound Labs Inc. announced this week.

"The idea is that law enforcement will have one device out on the road to test for both THC [a marijuana component] and alcohol," said Hound Labs CEO and founder Dr. Mike Lynn, an emergency room physician at Highland Hospital, in Oakland.

Typically, measuring the level of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) -- the psychoactive component in cannabis that gives users a "high" -- is done using urine, blood, or saliva tests. The results can show if marijuana has been used in recent days or weeks, but they are not a very accurate way to measure real-time impairment, said Lynn.

Hound Labs has been collaborating with scientists at UC Berkeley to develop the technology.

"The UC Berkeley scientists are a really good group, including the chair of bioengineering and the associate dean of the college of chemistry. It's a complicated scientific challenge," Lynn told CBS News.

The handheld device will be tested for roadside use by law enforcement agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area and then Lynn hopes it will eventually be used across the country.

"We plan to do clinical studies and also work with law enforcement on testing to make sure we have the exact device that's really needed out there on street," he said.

The AP reported in July that researchers from Washington State University also have a portable marijuana breathalyzer in the works.

Under that state's Initiative 502, which voters approved to legalize recreational marijuana use in 2012, drivers are considered impaired if they test positive for at least 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood.

But Lynn, who is also a reserve deputy sheriff for Alameda County, California, said standards for marijuana impairment out there right now are sketchy. He hopes the availability of breathalyzers will shift the national dialogue from one focused on detecting if THC is in the body to a discussion about creating standards that reflect actual impairment.

Sales of Hound Labs' devices to police and consumers could begin late next year, he said, and could carry a price tag of $1,000 or less. *edit*

News Moderator: Jacob Redmond 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Marijuana Breathalyzer Test Could Be Coming Soon
Author: Mary Brophy Marcus
Photo Credit: Wisegeek
Website: Valley News Live

 

[Radogast]

This is a good step 2......much better than blood tests... but what about step 1, proving that marijuana use causes or significantly increases risks of fatal accidents?

It is good to more scientifically measure a risk defined by law - but they are skipping the step of scientifically investigating the theory behind the law.


Blood alcohol levels were set in response to scientific studies showing that OVER 50% of traffic fatalities were alcohol related. That is a HUGE smoking gun.

Where is the smoking gun between marijuana use and traffic fatalities ? Where are the scientific studies?


I am unaware of an increase in traffic fatalities based on increased marijuana use. Once again, legal penalties for marijuana use far outweigh any proven danger.

 

[Going Down]

The handheld device will be tested for roadside use by law enforcement agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area and then Lynn hopes it will eventually be used across the country.

"We plan to do clinical studies and also work with law enforcement on testing to make sure we have the exact device that's really needed out there on street,"

So, I'm trying to get my brain wrapped around this. This device is going to be sent out to be "tested". Does that mean any results that come from this will be used against anyone in court?? This isn't hard evidence and hasn't been proven yet. I consider myself to a safer driver after I have smoked. Without smoking, I drive like my dad. Always looking for deer or turkey in the fields. My head is always on a swivel. Driving after smoking, I'm focused on where I'm going. I thought I read a study about the effects of smoking and driving on 420 news. Beginner smokers drove like they were intoxicated. Vereran smokers drove safer. Anyone remember that study?

 

[Radogast]

. . .
I thought I read a study about the effects of smoking and driving on 420 news. Beginner smokers drove like they were intoxicated. Vereran smokers drove safer. Anyone remember that study?

I have not read a study, but I have heard from several long term smokers, pretty much that - Once a person learns to drive with focus while high, marijuana smokers drive safer.

My friends and family wonder why I won't drive high, because I am just fine doing everything around the house while high (unless I am so blitzed I stumble into walls), but, personally, I won't do it. If anything happened, the legal system l would blame the marijuana instead of my bad night vision or the other driver.

 

[safeman]

The test then would tell the officer that the person use 1 hr ago or 1 month ago ( the average smoker smokes at least 1 x day and doing this every day would present a marijuana. Remember marijuana remaining in the body for 30 days meaning even if tested the next day same reading. tester's need to be calbrated for this BIG issue ( so if a person smoked 2weeks ago and then gets pulled over he would read + for marijuana >understand the need but much more specific time test is needed

 

[Weaselcracker]

Any increased chance to gain more control over citizens will always be welcomed. It doesn't matter whether a person is impaired or not, it's a great excuse to detain a person and get a foot in the door, car, or lives of people and is extremely useful for police work. I doubt if many police actually give a crap whether or not we are using cannabis.

 

[OlderGrower]

While it is true that THC will show up in your system for up and even longer then 30 days depending on your metabolism those tests use urine, not your breath. Perhaps they have developed breath analyses that can tell like with alcohol how much you have consumed in the past few hours. Unless the guy blowing into the instrument has a mouth full of pee, then he is screwed.

 

[Radogast]

Any increased chance to gain more control over citizens will always be welcomed. It doesn't matter whether a person is impaired or not, it's a great excuse to detain a person and get a foot in the door, car, or lives of people and is extremely useful for police work. I doubt if many police actually give a crap whether or not we are using cannabis.

Police do care. Busting someone for cannabis is the easiest bust in their work day. Convicting someone of cannabis use is the easiest conviction for the District Attorney's office. Keeping a cannabis user behind bars is the easiest job for a prison guard.

It is no coincidence that conviction rates for murders and non-drug felonies have gone down since the start of the war on drugs.

 

[Weaselcracker]

That sucks man. Obviously things vary greatly by region too. I'm in BC and my sense is that-with the entire justice system here overloaded to the point where cases are being thrown out every day to lighten the load, and thrown out because they've gone stale, cannabis charges are just a pain in the ass. Lot of cops smoke. So do judges. I only know one judge a bit personally, kind of a friend of a friend, and he smokes!
This would seem like a big step backwards, fixing something that's not broken, discovering that half the people they stop test positive, and then forcing them to do something about it. Probably the easiest fix is for them to go to a system where they can issue tickets and collect $

$$$$$$.

 

[BrokrnEyes]

What stops police from testing passengers with this device? There's still a financial vested interest by the law enforcement to bust people for possession and will be until it's legalized it.

 

[420 Warrior]

Could be both a good thing or a bad thing, IMO. I myself know perfectly well that I can drive just fine when I've partaken because I have been doing so for over 30 years now and have never had a problem driving after smoking, but that's just me and the manor of which I smoke which is just a little at a time, but that's like a little bit (a hit or two) every hour or more throughout the day. Personally, I don't like getting so ripped that I can't function properly so I just maintain a steady manageable buzz which makes it where I'm able to do simple daily tasks like driving. Not everyone does it like I do though and I've known people who think they need to smoke an entire eighth or more a day and stay so ripped that they are barely able to function, let alone drive safely. So that kind of makes this a catch 22 situation because it's still going to be hard to tell the level of impairment someone actually has.

I do however think that a Cannabis breathalyzer could possibly have a positive effect on whether or not states decide to legalize though, because I think this has always been one of the arguments made by law enforcement that they never had a way to tell for certain if someone is impaired on Cannabis and driving or not, unless they actually smelled it or searched and found it, but if you smoked it outside of the car and weren't traveling with it, they really had no proof and there was nothing they could really do, unlike with alcohol where you can tell for certain with a breathalyzer either way, drunk or sober.

I'm also hoping that companies will go to this method instead of doing urinalysis as well, because if it's just for testing real time impairment opposed to what you have been doing as far back as a month or so ago, then maybe they will not be so worried about what people do in their spare time in the privacy of their own homes anymore. It's none of anybodies business what we do at night to relax and take the stress off of our day and maybe now we will be able to breath a little easier by keeping our jobs.

Now what's really needed is on the fly hard drug detection devices that can determine if someone is strung out on h*roin, m*th, c*caine or pain killers while driving and/or working, maybe even one device that can tell if your impaired on ANY substance in a real time scenario?

As it stands now for me though, I'm going to remain on the fence if I'm supporting this or not until I see how and what they plan on using this for...the jury is still out for now.

 

[BrokrnEyes]

This occurred to me this morning. Out of courtesy to those around me, I make use of the cannabis killer candle which neutralizes the smell. I have lit and smoked indoors while other people are in the house and have them ask them if they smell anything to which they always say no they don't whereas if I don't light it they know immediately. Now, what's up someone from Whiting one of these in their car and smoking? From personal experience, when I used to be able to drive, when I was pulled over it's of the cop close to 10 minutes to get out of his car and come up to my driver window. That's more than enough time to blow out the candle, open the windows to fully air out the vehicle and then stuff the candle into the glove compartment or even under the seat and the officer would be none the wiser.

Now I'm not saying this to advocate what to do by any means, but it does reinforce what I asked earlier. And even begs the question of will this become a tool used for illegal profiling if this method of concealing the smell in the vehicle is used.
What's more, I have heard from my sisters boyfriend, who immigrated to the United States from Poland shortly after the iron curtain fell, that the police (he has since been back to pull in circle times and I guess this practice is still used), Will hide in a bush at a stop sign, and one circle car stop the come out of the bushes and stick the breathalyzer into the driver side window forcing the drivers to do an on the spot breathalyzer test. I don't know what the laws are like in Poland but here in United States they have to have probable cause at the very least, but as we have seen in national news over the past few years, police don't seem all that concerned about probable cause these days.

 

[420 Warrior]

This occurred to me this morning. Out of courtesy to those around me, I make use of the cannabis killer candle which neutralizes the smell. I have lit and smoked indoors while other people are in the house and have them ask them if they smell anything to which they always say no they don't whereas if I don't light it they know immediately. Now, what's up someone from Whiting one of these in their car and smoking? From personal experience, when I used to be able to drive, when I was pulled over it's of the cop close to 10 minutes to get out of his car and come up to my driver window. That's more than enough time to blow out the candle, open the windows to fully air out the vehicle and then stuff the candle into the glove compartment or even under the seat and the officer would be none the wiser.

Now I'm not saying this to advocate what to do by any means, but it does reinforce what I asked earlier. And even begs the question of will this become a tool used for illegal profiling if this method of concealing the smell in the vehicle is used.
What's more, I have heard from my sisters boyfriend, who immigrated to the United States from Poland shortly after the iron curtain fell, that the police (he has since been back to pull in circle times and I guess this practice is still used), Will hide in a bush at a stop sign, and one circle car stop the come out of the bushes and stick the breathalyzer into the driver side window forcing the drivers to do an on the spot breathalyzer test. I don't know what the laws are like in Poland but here in United States they have to have probable cause at the very least, but as we have seen in national news over the past few years, police don't seem all that concerned about probable cause these days.

There are no guarantees of anything my friend, there's only more questions with this as we really don't know at this point what plans they have for this device. It's all up in the air at this point. All I can say is that everyone needs to take measures not to get caught in the first place. Do your best to blend in and stay under the radar by being safe and fallowing proper driving protocol and etiquette to start with and they'll have no reason to pull you over and test you.

Cops do vary from place to place, some more militant in their methods than others but one thing seems to be certain in most all cases, that if you're courteous and respectful to them and not giving them a bunch of flack, most of them will be cool right back with you. I find that an apology for what ever it is they say I've done wrong also helps allot, like for example "Oh, I'm sorry boss, I didn't realize my tail light was out, I'll get that fixed right away, no problem, thank you for letting me know"...Or even "Yes sir boss, your right, I guess I was going a little too fast back there, I promise I won't be going that fast through here again, I guess I just wasn't paying attention to my speed and I'm sorry for that". Do Y'all see where I'm going with this? Kill them with kindness and cooperation and in most cases they'll even let you go with a warning, or at least that's been my personal experience anyway. Maybe some people can't pull this off but it's worked great for me most of my life.

I've only been busted once in my life by a overly militant rookie cop that was bound set and determined to search my vehicle and only found a small roach that didn't even have any weed in it because it was so old that all the weed had crumbled and fell out of it leaving nothing but a burnt piece of paper but he still busted me anyway. This was probably 20 years or more ago and I've not made that mistake again since. I now think ahead and take measures not to get caught in the first place by first and foremost driving right so they have no reason to pull me over, especially if I'm holding. The main thing is to not make stupid mistakes that give them suspicion and you'll be fine 9 out of 10 times. Do that and you can avoid the breathalyzer all together.

 

[OlderGrower]

Could be both a good thing or a bad thing, IMO. I myself know perfectly well that I can drive just fine when I've partaken because I have been doing so for over 30 years now and have never had a problem driving after smoking, but that's just me and the manor of which I smoke which is just a little at a time, but that's like a little bit (a hit or two) every hour or more throughout the day.

Ok so here is the thing, if you have been smoking 30 years and not been pulled over for smoking MJ chances are this new device will mean nothing to you because you drive responsibly. I love getting high as much as the next guy but people need to learn moderation and take personal responsibility. If they get so baked that they get pulled over, I sure as hell do not want to be on the road with them. Do I have an issue with someone being high within their personal limits and driving responsible? no None what so ever, go for it. But people need to learn moderation weather it be MJ beer what ever, and then take personal responsibility if you screw up. If you get pulled over because your so baked and get a ticket or arrested, you know who you should blame? Yourself thats who. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to drive if your impaired. That was your choice. You want weed to be legal, then be adult about it and be responsible. For me I see no difference between a guy who is out driving when he is totally baked and driving erratic or the guy who just downed that 12 pack and is driving. Both are in the wrong and putting your, mine and the people we care about lives in danger.

Sorry that may sound harsh but my sister was killed by an impaired driver and it makes no difference to me what he was impaired by, he should not of been driving.

 

[Radogast]

This occurred to me this morning. Out of courtesy to those around me, I make use of the cannabis killer candle which neutralizes the smell. I have lit and smoked indoors while other people are in the house and have them ask them if they smell anything to which they always say no they don't whereas if I don't light it they know immediately. Now, what's up someone from Whiting one of these in their car and smoking? From personal experience, when I used to be able to drive, when I was pulled over it's of the cop close to 10 minutes to get out of his car and come up to my driver window. That's more than enough time to blow out the candle, open the windows to fully air out the vehicle and then stuff the candle into the glove compartment or even under the seat and the officer would be none the wiser.

Now I'm not saying this to advocate what to do by any means, but it does reinforce what I asked earlier. And even begs the question of will this become a tool used for illegal profiling if this method of concealing the smell in the vehicle is used.
What's more, I have heard from my sisters boyfriend, who immigrated to the United States from Poland shortly after the iron curtain fell, that the police (he has since been back to pull in circle times and I guess this practice is still used), Will hide in a bush at a stop sign, and one circle car stop the come out of the bushes and stick the breathalyzer into the driver side window forcing the drivers to do an on the spot breathalyzer test. I don't know what the laws are like in Poland but here in United States they have to have probable cause at the very least, but as we have seen in national news over the past few years, police don't seem all that concerned about probable cause these days.

This is where decriminalization is your friend.

The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts has ruled that there is no such thing as probable cause to search for marijuana because posession and use are not a crime. This ruling was in response to two guys fishbowling in the front seat of their car, in broad daylight, on one of the largest streets in Boston (Commonwealth Avenue.) The knock on the window by police and order to submit to a search was considered an illegal search of their persons and property because there is no such thing as a justifiable search without a suspicion of a serious crime - much less a non-criminal infraction.

In oral arguments they they also stated that passing a lit joint is not trafficking or sales and that if an adult is actively smoking a joint in public, or is seen putting a bag of marijuana in his pocket, the officer is still not justified in asking to search his pocket for weed. This is the law for adults - if you are teenager, you are probably screwed and forced to go to drug rehab or face a criminal conviction.


I understand this is not a national law, or even a precedent for other states, but it is nice to know for those areas that have decriminalized.

It may help to say. "I am not offering resistance, but I do not agree to this search. I do not give permission for this search." Sadly, many cops are **$%^ and do not follow the law in their day to day jobs.

 

[BrokrnEyes]

Sadly, many cops are **$%^ and do not follow the law in their day to day jobs.

Yep, I have seen this firsthand (yep, I may be legally blind but I still see trees walking around), I can't go into too much detail but suffice it to say that on two separate occasions I have seen (well, this first example was actually relayed to me and my friend over the phone but my friends brother) police violate the law all the way up to conducting an illegal search for my friends son at my friends parents place and later that night to officers arrived at my place and took my friends son away from him. The police arrived at my house were from my precinct (he lives in another county) and were for more understanding than the first set but they to also violated the law as they allowed him to put his son and his exes car when they had been told to essentially immediately take his son into their custody (there actually rather sly about it, saying that the order didn't go into effect until they return to their station). My friends lawyer later told him that those police had technically broken the law (kindly though) by allowing him to put his son and his exes car.

His lawyer said the police essentially are only there to keep the peace, it's the lawyers that enforce the letter of the law which I suppose is understandable considering how many laws are on the books that an officer would have to keep track of, they would essentially have to become lawyers with guns and at that point we might as will have a judge dread sort of law system.

The inherent problem however, and I strongly believe it's why a lot of people fear the police, is because our court system is so slowed down that extreme case of say marijuana possession, if you can't get bond you may be sitting in the county lock up for weeks or months before you get your day in court and the judge throws the case out.

 

[420 Warrior]

Ok so here is the thing, if you have been smoking 30 years and not been pulled over for smoking MJ chances are this new device will mean nothing to you because you drive responsibly. I love getting high as much as the next guy but people need to learn moderation and take personal responsibility. If they get so baked that they get pulled over, I sure as hell do not want to be on the road with them. Do I have an issue with someone being high within their personal limits and driving responsible? no None what so ever, go for it. But people need to learn moderation weather it be MJ beer what ever, and then take personal responsibility if you screw up. If you get pulled over because your so baked and get a ticket or arrested, you know who you should blame? Yourself thats who. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to drive if your impaired. That was your choice. You want weed to be legal, then be adult about it and be responsible. For me I see no difference between a guy who is out driving when he is totally baked and driving erratic or the guy who just downed that 12 pack and is driving. Both are in the wrong and putting your, mine and the people we care about lives in danger.

Sorry that may sound harsh but my sister was killed by an impaired driver and it makes no difference to me what he was impaired by, he should not of been driving.

I could not agree more with you, if someone is too impaired to drive, they don't need to be driving, period! I'm sorry if you took me wrong here and I'm certainly sorry to hear about your sister, my sincere condolences to you and your family.

For the record, I wasn't implying that someone needs to be driving baked, on the contrary, I don't ever do that, I know perfectly well when I'm in no shape to drive, but as a professional truck driver, I have driving skills that most people out there don't posses and also for the record, I NEVER EVER drive a tractor trailer after smoking ANY amount and never have, I will not go there!

All I meant by my statement was that after a puff or two of the low potency Cannabis we have here in GA, you barely feel it enough to impair your driving, it's basically just enough to take the edge off your stress level from all the other idiots out there cutting you off, riding their brakes, tailgating, talking on their cell phones, driving excessively slow and all the other stupid things people do out on the road.

As a long time professional driver, I feel I have a right to make the statement that far too many people out there, impaired or dead sober can't drive for shit. People over the years have gotten to be horrible drivers, they drive distracted, they don't pay attention, they just don't get how dangerous a big hunk of metal is when it's hurling down the road and they insist on only paying attention to what's going on inside the vehicle instead of keeping there eyes on the road and the other cars around them.

My point here is that if you can't drive without something distracting you, no matter what it is or what condition your in, then you don't need to be driving, you need to pull over in a safe location and handle your business and only get back on the road when your prepared and ready to PAY ATTENTION to what's out there on the road with you, PERIOD!

Not to get to far off track here but I blame the DMV for this lack of driving skills these days, because back when I first got my drivers license, we had to go through a rigorous driving test out on an actual road with actual traffic conditions in a real environment that made you have to prove you were ready to be behind the wheel of a car. Now days, you only have to drive around in a parking lot with cones set up in an easy little obstacle course with simulated driving conditions. I'm sorry but that's not real driving, that's more like going to the go-cart track and driving around without a care in the world...It's down right scary if you ask me!

Sorry to get so off topic but I felt like it's a little relevant if we're here talking about driving and what conditions are safe to drive under.

 

[OlderGrower]

I could not agree more with you, if someone is too impaired to drive, they don't need to be driving, period! I'm sorry if you took me wrong here and I'm certainly sorry to hear about your sister, my sincere condolences to you and your family.

For the record, I wasn't implying that someone needs to be driving baked, on the contrary, I don't ever do that, I know perfectly well when I'm in no shape to drive, but as a professional truck driver, I have driving skills that most people out there don't posses and also for the record, I NEVER EVER drive a tractor trailer after smoking ANY amount and never have, I will not go there!

All I meant by my statement was that after a puff or two of the low potency Cannabis we have here in GA, you barely feel it enough to impair your driving, it's basically just enough to take the edge off your stress level from all the other idiots out there cutting you off, riding their brakes, tailgating, talking on their cell phones, driving excessively slow and all the other stupid things people do out on the road.

As a long time professional driver, I feel I have a right to make the statement that far too many people out there, impaired or dead sober can't drive for shit. People over the years have gotten to be horrible drivers, they drive distracted, they don't pay attention, they just don't get how dangerous a big hunk of metal is when it's hurling down the road and they insist on only paying attention to what's going on inside the vehicle instead of keeping there eyes on the road and the other cars around them.

My point here is that if you can't drive without something distracting you, no matter what it is or what condition your in, then you don't need to be driving, you need to pull over in a safe location and handle your business and only get back on the road when your prepared and ready to PAY ATTENTION to what's out there on the road with you, PERIOD!

Not to get to far off track here but I blame the DMV for this lack of driving skills these days, because back when I first got my drivers license, we had to go through a rigorous driving test out on an actual road with actual traffic conditions in a real environment that made you have to prove you were ready to be behind the wheel of a car. Now days, you only have to drive around in a parking lot with cones set up in an easy little obstacle course with simulated driving conditions. I'm sorry but that's not real driving, that's more like going to the go-cart track and driving around without a care in the world...It's down right scary if you ask me!

Sorry to get so off topic but I felt like it's a little relevant if we're here talking about driving and what conditions are safe to drive under.

Sorry, I am actually laughing because I had a feeling you were going to take that wrong, I really need to learn how to communicate better.
No it was not me who took you wrong it was you who took me wrong. I was totally agreeing with your statement. I merely was using your quote as a reference to what I believe to be a responsible driver. Obviously if you have driven 30 years while smoking and not been pulled over, then it is safe to say, you did not go beyond your personal limits and drove responsibly. So if the implemented the breath-alizer nothing in your world is really going to change.
Oh and thank you for your condolences, she died in 1971 due to a drunk driver. She was a senior in HS and I was only 11 at the time. It devastated our whole family.

I totally agree with you that people on the roads are getting worse every year between cell phones, and everything else that they get distracted by.

 

[Radogast]

Sorry, I am actually laughing because I had a feeling you were going to take that wrong, I really need to learn how to communicate better.
No it was not me who took you wrong it was you who took me wrong. I was totally agreeing with your statement. I merely was using your quote as a reference to what I believe to be a responsible driver. Obviously if you have driven 30 years while smoking and not been pulled over, then it is safe to say, you did not go beyond your personal limits and drove responsibly. So if the implemented the breath-alizer nothing in your world is really going to change.
Oh and thank you for your condolences, she died in 1971 due to a drunk driver. She was a senior in HS and I was only 11 at the time. It devastated our whole family.

I totally agree with you that people on the roads are getting worse every year between cell phones, and everything else that they get distracted by.

Since I moved to Massachusetts, drivers are A LOT WORSE. I prefer driving any other state to Massachusetts, including driving in hot spots like Manhattan.

I am sorry your sister died in an auto accident, As recall, in 1971, before Mothers Against Drunk Driving, about 50,000 people died in USA traffic accidents each year - at least half of them due to drunk driving. While the overall skill of drivers may be worse, the agressive removal of many of the drunk drivers from the road has cut traffic fatalities.

Although it failed, the massive impact of alcohol, in driving accidents, domestic violence, date rape, and health problems is so severe, I can fully understand why folks tried prohibition in the 1920s. As bad as things are, the reduction in alcohol abuse while driving and cigarette smoking in public places does mean we live in a healthier world than the 1970s.

 

[BrokrnEyes]

One thing my father has always said about the "moral dilemmas" of humanity is this: "you can't regulate morality". Vice is simply a fact of life. Though we know better now, at one point smoking cannabis was considered a serious vice by the public (and pushed by our leaders in that direction) but that never stopped people from getting their hands on bud. There in lies the ultimate issue why prohibition failed. By attempting to control the vice, even though it was meant with the best of intentions, it created the "forbidden fruit" mentality that a lot of people who genuinely believe making a substance illegal will better Society fail to understand. It makes more sense to at least ride the wave of the vice in question and do what you can to Direct the interests of the public (that does not mean putting a huge tax on it, like they do with cigarettes (i've lost track of how many people I have seen selling single cigarettes for $.50 apiece on the corner or by a liquor shop but I'm getting off topic here. In a case to sum it up, it's better to create social awareness about something but still allow people to make their own choice about that thing in question rather than to make it illegal in and cursory people or slap a huge tax on it so you end up profiting off the persons vice.