1. Awesome invention, straws that detect adulterants and change colour
2. Obviously people do get drugged occasionally, the inventor seems to have had it happen to him
3. Unfortunately there seems to be no real evidence that GHB or ketamine are often used in sexual assaults, and even Rohypnol which has the worst reputation has not often been detected. A straw that could detect a drink that's stronger than you think it is might be more useful, AFAICT the number one date-rape drug is alcohol.
(I want to be absolutely clear here, I'm not saying date rape doesn't happen, I'm not saying that some really nasty people don't deliberately get others into pliable states to take advantage of them, but AFAICT the use of drugs in the way the media likes to run scare stories about is very uncommon)
Regarding #3, what data are you going off to say that Rohypnol has not been detected, and that drugging overall is uncommon? I have experienced it twice in the past 18 months through friends whom I have drank with many times, and had a very obvious reaction to one drink which often had been bought for them or left on a table/bar at some point that evening. Unless someone poured them a drink comprised of 6+ shots worth of liquor, there is no way they would have gone through the change they went through in that one drink. Also, if it had been that much alcohol, it would have been noticed in taste.
Uncommon is pretty broad, if something as severe as being drugged happens to one person out of every 200 each night, it is "common" in my mind.
>> Regarding #3, what data are you going off to say that Rohypnol has not been detected, and that drugging overall is uncommon?
Wikipedia has links to a couple of studies. It says Rohypnol was detected in less than 1% of cases of sexual assault where drugging was suspected.
I obviously have no idea what you and your friends have seen or been through or what they may have been spiked with. I'm just saying that whenever actual figures are looked at the problem of drinks being spiked with drugs turns out to be far, far behind witting or unwitting consumption of alcohol as the reason for people being in a bad way.
This is in NO WAY whatsoever saying it's acceptable to abuse someone who's drunk, or that it's their fault. People should be free to get as trashed as they like without bad people doing bad things to them.
It may very well be that this stuff doesn't get tested or reported very often, in which case the most we can say is we don't have reliable data.
> It is difficult to estimate the number of Rohypnol-facilitated rapes in the United States. Very often, biological samples are taken from the victim at a time when the effects of the drug have already passed and only residual amounts remain in the body fluids. These residual amounts are difficult, if not impossible, to detect using standard screening assays available in the United States. If Rohypnol exposure is to be detected at all, urine samples need to be collected within 72 hours and subjected to sensitive analytical tests.
Now, the bit about "sensitive analytical tests" has me pretty worried. We are living in a nation where an awful lot of rape kits collected after the crime of rape are simply put on a shelf because there is no money to process them. I bet that "sensitive analytical tests" aren't even on the menu a lot of times.
I really want to stress that I don't think that in any way diminishes the awfulness of the crime, I just wonder if (like stranger danger) we don't overemphasise the worst-case at the cost of the mundane (people known to the victim, alcohol)
Because alleged "awareness campaigns" which focus on the least common risk factors (and there are many such campaigns) are a major annoyance to me: it's well worth reviewing the other study linked here:
And well worth reviewing other literature on results from screenings conducted quickly after a suspected assault.
Focusing on "date rape drugs" presents a vastly inaccurate picture of the real risk factors, not least because it creates an implicit assumption that alcohol and common recreational drugs are not the major risks, when they are far more common and plenty capable of reducing inhibitions or inducing unconsciousness all on their own.
Perhaps a good analogy would be to anti-terror campaigns: we are drawn toward the uncommon and dramatic events, and focus our attention and efforts on them, when far more could be accomplished from dealing with more common but less "flashy" risks.
(another example with rape is the focus on "stranger danger", which creates an implicit assumption of safety in the company of people one already knows, when in fact most rapes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim rather than by strangers who leap from behind bushes)
In defense of "awareness campaigns" (I had a roommate who was a health educator) the statistics about whether one is more likely to be raped by a stranger or an acquaintance are very, very widely reported.
> Focusing on "date rape drugs" presents a vastly inaccurate picture of the real risk factors
I don't disagree but I think a presentation regarding date rape drugs is normally given after alcohol has already been discussed. An educator who discussed date rape drugs first, or in isolation, would most certainly be Doing It Wrong.
A lot of what leads people to that inaccurate picture of the risk factors, I suspect, is the natural human tendency to assume that none of the people I know would ever do something like that. Not to mention the assumption that familiarity with alcohol implies some sort of mastery over it. You can lead a horse to data but you can't make him drink, or something.
The irony is that there is money to test them, you just need to convince female voters to call their representative and tell them that you'd rather they spend war on terrorism money on getting those rape kits processed instead. Considering that a woman is far more likely to be a victim of rape than terrorism, it's absurd that any rape kit ever sit on the shelf untested.
Rohypnol in particular should be easy to pick up, Flunitrazepam has a halflife of 18+ hours and at least one metabolite has a halflife of 36-200 hours. In fact according to this - http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/201894.pdf - it can be detected in urine for 5 days and hair for a month.
If people are unlikely to report, or if drugs that are metabolised faster are used then sure, we may not have good data. But then all we can really say is we don't have good data.
There are so many factors that can lead to a temporary increased sensitivity to alcohol that I am skeptical of anecdotal evidence like this, especially when alcohol is involved.
Rohypnol/GHB are certainly used as date rape drugs, but they have an effect that is distinct from just more liquor.
> I have experienced it twice in the past 18 months through friends whom I have drank with many times, and had a very obvious reaction to one drink which often had been bought for them or left on a table/bar at some point that evening. Unless someone poured them a drink comprised of 6+ shots worth of liquor, there is no way they would have gone through the change they went through in that one drink.
Can you elaborate at all? I'm curious because, as disgusting as it is, I can sort of understand the motivation of the standard date rape scenario with Rohypnol. What you're describing sounds more like the equivalent of someone spiking the punch... with Rohypnol? To what end?
I've had it happen to me as well. I was very young at the time and only had two drinks the entire night. Luckily I was with safe friends, so it could have been worse.
Shockingly once at a party I was offered to buy rohypnol. I was lurid. I certainly don't look like the type of person who would buy drugs, much less from a random stranger...
You know what, as someone interested in everything possible, I probably would have bought some, experimented on myself with it and then flushed anything left. I find the whole area absolutely fascinating.
That's not to say I expect everyone to be like me, but I guess it may go some way to explaining my attitude of "don't blame the drugs, blame the people". ANd now that I write that out I can see how much it looks like something the NRA might say.
That's exactly it though, lots of people "experience" being roofied, and then are tested and it turns out they were not. Our "common sense" judgments on situations like this are actually incredibly unreliable.
>Uncommon is pretty broad, if something as severe as being drugged happens to one person out of every 200 each night, it is "common" in my mind.
But evidence suggests it is no where even close to that common. Alcohol on the other hand might very well be used more often than 1 in 200.
TL;DR: 1014 people claimed they were drugged and sexually assaulted. "In 21 cases (2%), a sedative or disinhibiting drug was detected..." So-called "date rape" drugs were a subset of these cases.
None of these "date rape drugs" even come close to comparing to alcohol.
It's the original and most effective date rape drug, and no one even really objects to people using it for that purpose.
Getting people drunk to get them to sleep with you isn't really /wrong./
Once you start using scary drugs that no one has ever heard of, then wow, that's something we can condemn. Especially since no one we know would ever do such a thing.
>> Getting people drunk to get them to sleep with you isn't really /wrong./
It is, sorry.
There's nothing wrong with two people having a few drinks and going to bed together. But it's at the very least creepy to plan to knock someone's inhibitions down that way, or to take advantage of them.
>> It's the original and most effective date rape drug, and no one even really objects to people using it for that purpose.
I'm giving the commenter the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he means that "there's nothing wrong with getting someone hammered to try and sleep with them", he means that "society seems to have a much smaller problem with getting someone hammered to try and sleep with them despite it being the same basic idea as GHB."
Dunno. To me there's a vast differnce between getting pissed and falling into bed with someone as a mutual "WAHEY! let's go for it!" thing and "if I keep buying her drinks maybe she'll get drunk enough to take her top off". The latter seems little better than spiking them.
--edit-- OK so I've read his other comments and it was clearly a comment on society and meant to be taken at anything but face value. I'll be the first to admit that in discussions like these I can easily suffer from a sense of humour failure, if not a complete lack of sarcasm detection.
Is he saying that he uses it that way himself? No.
He's saying that society doesn't view it as negatively as it should... You shouldn't need to lower someones inhibitions for them to sleep with you...
The very fact that you say "it's creepy to lower someones inhibitions that way" only serves to reinforce his point... It's not just "creepy" it's downright fucked up; and for a portion of society it is common-case usage.
OK so I am glad I read this. I wasn't sure how to take your first comment, as is a classic on the net - I read into it emotionally as praise for the actions you described. I'm glad to read that I had the wrong end of the stick.
> There's nothing wrong with two people having a few drinks and going to bed together. But it's at the very least creepy to plan to knock someone's inhibitions down that way, or to take advantage of them.
Is there an objective test, that can be administered by a third party, to differentiate between these two cases? If not, then what?
You mean no one really objects to people drinking enough to make bad decisions with one another, then hating themselves for it so much that they... proceed to go out again and get drunk again and make bad decisions with one another again, and do it over and over and over again?
You might almost think people like sex and alcohol from all this insanity. Next thing you know, they'll be opening up establishments where men and women go to get drunk and pick each other for sloppy drunk scores. That'll be the day...
That's arguable. I think the line between "these friends know each other and have been flirtatious in the past, it's okay that they got drunk one night and hooked up" and "this random person put a date rape drug in that other person's drink so they could take advantage of their state" is extremely large.
I think keevie's comment was referring more to a situation in which two strangers meet, one buys many drinks for the other, and then, once very drunk, gets them into bed. If you ask 100 people if that's wrong to do, I'm pretty confident that you're going to get much more conflicting answers than if you ask them about either of your two examples.
On the one hand, it's basically what a lot of people just take as the norm. They think that's what you're supposed to do at bars. On the other, it also just happens to be a way to make someone much less resistant to doing things they would never do otherwise.
The problem is "drunk" is a range (or "very drunk", as you would have it). Clearly it's wrong to have sex with someone who's passed out. And with someone who's almost passed out. And with someone who's almost almost passed out. After that it gets a bit more murky. How drunk is the other party? Is there an existing relationship?
I don't think people are more tolerant of alcohol because it's more familiar. I think people are more tolerant of it because the imbiber is usually cognizant of what they're drinking, and does so willingly. Having something done to you without your knowledge or consent IS scarier than having someone persuade you to get carried away with something you're already choosing to do.
That's a fair point. I would think that it's a bit of both, rather than either/or. It's worth pointing out though that just because it's less scary doesn't mean it's less problematic.
You are very wrong that no one objects to people using alcohol as a date rape drug, and I don't hesitate to condemn anyone who pressures someone else into drinking in order to control them.
Another reason the attitude you display here is alarming is that it may be difficult to tell the difference between a drunk person and a drugged person. It's not like the victim falls unconscious and the attacker carries them away. Someone who has been slipped GHB might be perceived by the people around them as having gotten drunk deliberately, for example.
> It's the original and most effective date rape drug, and no one even really objects to people using it for that purpose.
They really do. Drunk consent isn't consent, and people leave themselves open to accusations of, and convictions for, rape if they have sex with drunk people.
>people leave themselves open to accusations of, and convictions for, rape if they have sex with drunk people.
People are always open to accusations. I can't find evidence of a single conviction for someone consenting to sex while intoxicated. Only when causing the intoxication in the first place, without consent, does further consent get negated.
Arizona: A.R.S. §§ 13-1401 and 13-1406; Illinois: 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-13;
Kansas: K.S.A. § 21-3502; Maine: 17-A M.R.S. § 109; Missouri: R.S.Mo. §§ 566.040 and
566.061; and Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. § 940.225.
And claims these as case law for
> • Either statute or case law specifically outlaws having intercourse
> with a person who is too intoxicated to consent.
> In these states,
> the victim’s intoxication negates the element of consent, thereby
> showing that the sexual act occurred without consent.
Interestingly, while the statute uses the term too intoxicated to consent, it doesn't define it.
Is an unconscious person too intoxicated to consent to consent? Most people would say yes, and I imagine the law would concur.
Is a person drifting in and out of consciousness too intoxicated to consent? Most people would say yes.
Is a person who's able to walk, but obviously drunk, too intoxicated to consent? What if you ask them to come to your place to have sex and they agree with a drunken "uhhh yeah uuuhhhh cooool... uuuhhh ok". This is sounding more like real consent but a lot of people would proceed with caution to avoid a bad situation and/or regret.
Is a person who's had a couple of drinks and is exhibiting increased outgoingness and reduced inhibitions too intoxicated to consent? This is where a lot of dates and hookups end up. Most people would say this is OK, but a zealous prosecutor with an axe to grind might be able to make charges stick.
And finally, one presumes that if you're below the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle, you are also able to consent to sex.
They appear to be begging the question. The statutes in question do not say that drinking negates consent, they say that it is rape if someone is too drunk to consent. You have to look at precedent to try to determine what constitutes "too drunk to consent". It is not a simple case of "oh I was drinking so nothing I say counts" as some like to portray. The law has to be careful because claiming "I was drunk" to get out of consent would also have significant repercussions on other cases, not just rape.
There is no legal definition of "drunk consent". It's up to a jury to decide if a person was too intoxicated to consent. It's also extremely hard to prove, which is part of why rape convictions are rare.
There are definitely laws about surreptitiously intoxicating someone, however, which may quickly lead to conviction if proven.
The analogy you're looking for here is drunk being-run-over, not drunk driving. Consider this illustrative example:
Driver: "Hey man, mind if I run over your leg?"
Drunk Person: "mfamhhhhmmhaha sure lesh pud it on youtubes"
Driver: looks at camera "You hear that judge and jury?! Consent! Yeeehaw!"
That's not what he was asking. The question is if someone can be "too drunk to consent" (assuming they are conscious enough to verbally consent, but too drunk for that consent to be valid in the eyes of the law), then why are people held responsible for drunk driving incidents? If the law finds them incapacitated to the point of not being held responsible for their decisions (in this case to have sex, or sign contracts, etc), why are they held responsible for their decision to drive drunk? It's a valid question and I don't think I've ever seen it answered sufficiently.
Note you can kill all the people you want in a plain ole traffic accident with practically no punishment compared to using any other weapon... as long as you're not drunk. Heck they don't even municipal cite people for killing bicyclists around here, sometimes. Needless to say I don't ride on the roads or let my kids ride on the roads, that would be pretty dumb to do, given the prevailing conditions.
Because the drunk driver's lack of consent isn't the problem with drunk driving: it's the lack of consent from everyone else on the road.
The issue with consent while drunk isn't about what you do to yourself while drunk: it is about hurting other people. You have the right to get drunk to the point of passing out in front of the stereo with The Cure's worst album at full blast, the dishes undone, leftovers on the stove and that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal your stereo, sharpie your face or fuck you (even if they shake you hard enough to get some vague affirmatory groan out of your body).
Your answer implicitly casts the drunk person being acted upon, rather than an actor. I see this a lot and I have a feeling this stems from society's sexist views regarding sex that we've all internalized (men are always the actor, women passive). The point is assuming the drunk person (lets assume a women) is giving "enthusiastic consent", and thus is a "drunk actor" in this situation, why is responsibility invalidated in the case of sex, but not in the case of drunk driving?
Someone capable of enthusiastic consent doesn't have their responsibility invalidated. Where did anyone say that? The important cases are where the consent is marginal -- either temporally separated from the act or given from a person who is borderline comatose. Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem.
Do you acknowledge that there is a level of drunk where you can still sort of walk and talk but all that is really happening is you on autopilot trying to find your bed or just anywhere to sleep? Imagine being in this state among many acquaintances both new and old (which are the typical assailants). Imagine trying to find the safety of a bed and upon half-hearing a friend's offer in a loud place, saying "yes I want to go to bed", and that being misinterpreted? Compare this to being drunk, and seeking out the danger of driving home.
(I deliberately chose The Cure because I only know men who listen to them. Yes, society's norms frame women as passive, but it also makes them actual victims of sexual assault at alarming rates.)
>Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem.
I would agree that if one can "enthusiastically consent" then they are responsible for their actions. The problem is a lot of people would disagree with this, and the law seems murky on the subject. Also considering the fact that one could enthusiastically consent at the time but still be black-out drunk and thus have a different interpretation of how they ended up in bed with a guy.
If your concern is with people who are barely conscious, then we have no argument. However, I would say that the lines you draw in fact dodge the real question here. No one can reasonably consider a half-conscious person to offer consent. The question is really about people who are visibly drunk, not almost comatose, and actually give consent (enthusiastic or not). This is where the dangerous grey area lies. Many people claim that such a person cannot legally consent, whether enthusiastic or not. That is the real question here. I would like such a person's take on the difference between liability from driving and liability for a regrettable lay.
Could you edit your post to clarify what you mean? The comments show this as an example of when not to convey your point using sarcasm, as everybody stopped reading once they read one statement.
I can't edit my post it seems, but yes, I am most definitely being sarcastic here.
I absolutely believe that it is wrong to rape someone, and that getting people drunk to get them to sleep with you is rape.
In my experience, society does not think that, which is why we use phrases like "date rape," and talk about "date rape drugs" without ever mentioning alcohol.
I'll assume you're being sarcastic with the condoning of sexual assault, however one difference is that a person who drinks a lot after being offered said drinks is complicit in their own intoxication, whereas with a date rape drug they are unaware
Not so common in North America anymore, but very common in S. America and Europe. Brazil expect every drink you have to be spiked with scopolamine especially if you're a rich looking tourist and a girl who makes $50/week wants to clear out your hotel. I would expect the same in the Czech Republic too, but since bartenders are in cahoots with the thieves there you'd need to bring your own straws.
I also don't think this guy's idea will work very well, and instead will create a false sense of security instead of just watching your drink, which is probably the reason cases of Rohypnol/GHB have declined in N. America since there's so much education about guarding your drink or tossing it if you leave it alone. Bouncers also provide benefit denial of this crime/scam, and will usually stop somebody walking out dragging a girl until they find her friends, at least here they do.
Another problem is I see criminals just bringing in their own straws and switching them while dumping in the drug. Bars are unlikely to order these glasses unless they are inexpensive, they go through so many broken glasses it's not worth it to them to swtich. Their bleach + high heat cleaning methods might render the protection useless too after a few washings.
The bigger problem with cups would be dark-colored drinks. The concept looks great if we assume a martini. But fairly useless with a cola- or red-juice-based mixer.
Create a spiral straw from two trips, like a candy cane. One strip turns one color in the presence of Alcohol and turns darker the more it detects - and the other strip turns a different color in the presence of anything else that you want to detect for.
Clubs and bars tend to be dark and the patrons inebriated. I have to imagine that those factors would go an awful long way toward nullifying any benefit of this stuff.
Also, if the technology involved is anything like the color-changing "field test" kits that cops use, false positives will be a problem.
An associate of mine was booked for "heroin possession" when an overzealous cop decided to test his aspirin during a traffic stop - he was released the instant he got a hold of a lawyer.
This is a great invention that can help prevent abuse, but I'm worried bars won't buy in for a few reasons:
1) I assume the cups have to be disposable, as the strips probably don't work multiple times. Most bars I've been to don't use disposable cups.
2) Even if they did, it has to be cost effective for the bar to consider using them. If 1000 cups is $250 (0.25/cup) and you can get 10,000 normal cups for that price, that's going to probably factor into their decision.
3) The bar might be worried that having these cups might reflect poorly on their reputation. I can imagine people saying to themselves "Why is the bar using special glasses that detect date rape? Is date rape a problem at this bar?" When you introduce an item like this it might lead to speculation that there is a problem when really you're trying to be safe. It's like if you installed a metal detector at a club and put bars on the windows -- you might be doing it just to be safe, but your patrons might think "do things happen here that warrant security precautions like this"?
On number 3, people might think the opposite too.
"We can go here and not have to worry!"
I wonder how that would factor into how much someone drinks "Since there are no drugs to worry about, the people must be trustworthy enough to get blackout drunk around!"
It seems to me that, rather than making straws and drinks that do this, it would be better to see if it could be incorporated into some kind of nail polish that, once dried, could detect this.
I suggest nail polish for two reasons. One is that it removes the need to carry specialized tools: once you've done your nails, you can test 10 drinks and leave the bottle at home. Not having to carry a tool is somewhat more convenient, but it also means the tool can't be forgotten, lost, stolen, or tampered with.
The other advantage is discretion. It's not difficult, with a setup like this, to test a drink without others knowing what you are doing. It could be argued that people shouldn't mind being tested, but from a pragmatic standpoint, the kind of person who spikes a drink is the kind of person who could very easily become dangerous if they know they're being put to the test. A discreet test, therefore, is a safer test, and since these tests are supposed to be all about safety, it follows that a discreet test is also a better test.
> "Boston Man Invents Straws And Cups That Detect Date Rape Drugs"
Invents? I thought this has been around for quite awhile now? I remember hearing about things like this years ago. Maybe it was just the idea, and had not yet been actually a physical product though?
These drugs are without consistent ingredients and are always changing. He will need to stay ontop of drug trends and the constant iteration will side track the project. His biggest challenge will be scoring the actual drug to test the sensors... The chances that he will be able to produce these cups for an amount equal to the current cost of a regular plastic cup is doubtful. Etch-it cups can't even come close to the price of a regular plastic cup so how can these sensor cups be priced to attract bulk orders from bars and clubs?
My guess is that he is banking that the patent has value to cup manufacturers but the cup manufacturers probably don't want to hire a slew of scientist for R&D. They just want to make and sell cups.
Now I know I may be stupid engineer but isn't much simpler solution to have someone trusted who to call from time to time. With everybody having smartphones an gps app that for given period of time sends messages to trusted 3rd party about your location and being able to call if something is out of order is also a solution.
Just before going upstairs she just calls to the "warden" and if she is speaking coherent ... do whatever you like. If not - the trusted party can take a cab or signal the police.
"Now I know I may be stupid engineer but isn't much simpler solution"
I'm with you on this. Nothing stupider than slapping a technical solution on a social problem and calling it good.
Hmm, going out to drink unknown substances out of other peoples cups and letting other people mix potions for you and drinking out of cups people leave laying around unsupervised for others to mess with, is unsafe now, so "open mouth and out comes ridiculous cross between rube goldberg, life magazine predictions from 75 years ago about the future, and star trek technobabble". No, its just an obsolete, dangerous, dumb way to spend your time. You wanna do something stupid, fine, have fun, but don't come crying to me about how us smart people "have" to do something about your dumb decisions.
Kinda like free love was cool before HIV. Or going drunk driving was a great idea when you drove your own horse, but really dumb idea after cars. Sorry to break it to all the whiners but like it or not we live in the 2010s so deal with it or suffer. Going out drinking means pretty scary odds of date rape. So unless you're dense as neutronium, don't do it.
Before the chorus of how dare I blame the victim, well I have the right to blame them because I'm not an idiot. Going out drinking might have been fun in ye olden daze but its not ye olden daze anymore, its dumb and dangerous and THAT is why I have the right to blame the victim. I didn't get this brilliant knowledge from a reveled religion or a secret sauce, but from incessant whining of journalist reports, any other moron out there should be able to figure out the same thing I figured out, which is not to go out drinking anymore. Too bad for the victim if they're too dumb or lazy to think like the human being they are. Actions do have consequences.
I do have genuine pity for like "the first" date rape victims, how could she have possibly known and she'd not to blame. But we've had a lot of journalism since then. Not for some idiot who went out last night with a virtual bullseye painted on their fun parts, knowing fully whats probably about to happen, knowing that when the inevitable happens, they can just blame "society" or maybe blame the "techies for not inventing a cure"... anyone to blame but themselves.
There are perfectly good social solutions to this social problem. BYOB. Carry a fashionable hip flask. Strange as it may sound, you can socialize with friends without consuming liquids of any sort (insane concept, huh?). Take up an intoxicant that's safer than alcohol and harder (impossible?) to spike, like weed. "Back when I was a kid" we got totally drunk BEFORE we went out, who wants to repeatedly pay $7 a glass for something I can get drunk on at home for 75 cents/can, especially when you're a poor student. Only get drunk with actual friends at home instead of criminal strangers at a bar who want to take advantage of you. We're all smart here, its not very hard to figure out. These "revolutionary" ideas might negatively impact someones entrenched profitable business model? Tough cookies. Cry me a river.
But don't spew random tech all over an outmoded idiotic behavior and call it brilliant. Its just obsolete thrashing about. Wanna suffer? Fine go out and do it. I'm not going to feel any pity when the inevitable happens.
Don't worry, people are still going to find the numerous other ways to act stupid and hurt themselves.
> Or going drunk driving was a great idea when you drove your own horse, but really dumb idea after cars.
I don't think the danger to self is a big differentiatory between drunk horseback riding vs. drunk driving, rather, the difference in the external costs is.
Instead of every cup or every straw doing this, some random and unknown percentage would do it. Combined with advertising, it could be an effective deterrent in a place where this is a real problem.
People keep mentioning a bar's reputation, but at the end of the day if this is a real problem for your bar, your reputation is already screwed. This seems to me like a very pro-active way of working on fixing an already broken reputation.
That's where I think this product can't really be considered a consumer product. It would be much more useful for businesses.
At first glance, the same criticism holds for a bar that has these ("you think your patrons are rapists?" or "that place is so bad it needs those cups" spring to mind). But I feel like that's just a marketing challenge.
Instead, I think the company selling the cups could market them with focus on the avoidance of sexual assault and make their customers (bars/clubs) look like community leaders. Maybe they'll even have a cool little symbol to plaster beneath the neon signs. I have a hunch that that symbol could sway more customers than the availability of Bud Light.
You'd be surprised. I'm fairly sure I was drugged one night out at a club in London while out with coworkers. Fairly upscale place, very rough experience.
No, I think the rest of civilization should be warped around preserving "bar culture" and our best minds should be eternally in a cat and mouse game of straw maker vs underground organic chemist.
(Note I was kidding)
Going out drinking is no longer a sane activity. So don't.
When the drink isn't drugged, these look just like straws and cups that don't detect drugs. This suggests an obvious attack: swap out the straw or cup for a plain plastic one. (Countermeasure: make the cups and straws look distinctive.)
I happen to know (no time to look up the patent number now, sorry) that this is covered by a US, and EU patent. A friend of mine lost more than €30,000 to being sued by a firm that already holds the rights to this.
I hope he figures it out before they start trolling him. My friend's “invention” also covered a product on beer-mats and serviettes that would change colour under the same circumstances, unfortunately the patent he was facing down was so broadly written that it covered basically anything that could be used to detect daterape drugs in a drink by indicating it somehow.
Surely the patent could have been battled, but he wasn't in the financial position to do so.
A better solution is to learn the behaviors that rapists use - being pushy and overbearing, not taking no for an answer, cutting out of the herd, stuff like that. If your buddy behaves like that, don't let him get away with it.
And it's useless to detect rape drugs because the biggest rape drug is alcohol.
Why does this frequently "invented" useless item keep getting press every time it is "invented" for the dozenth time? These are really misguided devices, that give people a false sense of safety (it is even labeled "safe" on the non-spiked drink) when alcohol is far and away the most used and most dangerous date rape drug.
You could always invent your own strip that detects alcohol and displays UNSAFE. That way people will be reminded before they drink their vodka tonic that it contains alcohol.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. The goal of these things is to prevent date rape by someone unsuspectingly taking particular drugs. There's not much you are going to be able to invent if your goal is to stop date rape by preventing people from knowingly drinking alcohol.
But you just repeated the same thing. Again, I am not suggesting "stop date rape by preventing people from knowingly drinking alcohol" should be a goal. I am saying these devices are harmful. They have the opposite effect from what is intended. They create a false sense of security in regards to the problem, convincing people that as long as their drink hasn't been spiked they are fine. But 99% of date rapes involving drugs aren't from drink spiking, they are just from drinking.
Perhaps both of you would understand each others position better, by meditating on the phrase "security theater".
A straw that detects a handful of numerous dangerous substances is about as useful at its claim of producing "safety" as TSA agents molesting grandmas and teen girls at airports. I'm rather proud of this analogy.
I understand the position (and enjoy your analogy), I just simply disagree with it. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is drinking an alcoholic beverage is going to be tricked into thinking the effects of said alcohol are any different just because a straw or cup says "SAFE."
Go ask some college aged women about it and see what you find. Ignorance of the effects of alcohol is incredibly widespread. Thousands of women a year swear they had their drink spiked but actually just got black-out drunk. Convincing women that all they need to worry about is the 1% case, and that the 99% case doesn't exist is harmful.
2. Obviously people do get drugged occasionally, the inventor seems to have had it happen to him
3. Unfortunately there seems to be no real evidence that GHB or ketamine are often used in sexual assaults, and even Rohypnol which has the worst reputation has not often been detected. A straw that could detect a drink that's stronger than you think it is might be more useful, AFAICT the number one date-rape drug is alcohol.
(I want to be absolutely clear here, I'm not saying date rape doesn't happen, I'm not saying that some really nasty people don't deliberately get others into pliable states to take advantage of them, but AFAICT the use of drugs in the way the media likes to run scare stories about is very uncommon)