

Indiana Company Formed to Improve Marijuana Detection
Wednesday, August 13th, 2008
Indiana Company Formed to Improve Marijuana Detection - Newsroom - Inside INdiana Business with Gerry Dick
Two Purdue University researchers have joined with a northern Indiana biotechnology firm to launch a company to improve marijuana’s detection in a person’s system.Intelimmune LLC will focus on developing a more reliable and accurate diagnostic tool for detecting the presence of tetrehydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana, said Fred Regnier, Purdue’s John H. Law Distinguished Professor Analytical Chemistry.
Jiri Adamec, research assistant professor at Bindley, said the current test for THC is based on unstable antibodies and fraught with problems. Intelimmune researchers hope to devise a process that’s much more precise and reliable.
“Law enforcement can use breathalyzers to determine whether a person is above the legal limit for alcohol use, and saliva is used to detect the presence of marijuana, or THC, in a person’s system, but that test isn’t reliable,” Adamec said. “We look to deliver a proven process that will vastly improve on the present-day test for marijuana.”
Adamec, who will serve as a technical officer for Intelimmune, said the process being developed by the company also is a saliva test, but it will not use protein-based antibodies. Instead, he said, it will employ a process known as “molecular imprinting,” in which an artificial antibody is used to capture THC. Results from this process also would be available in about five minutes, which is comparable to existing diagnostic tools.
For me, this is one sticky issue to cover. NORML always has called for the responsible use of marijuana by adults, and most certainly driving while impaired by cannabis is not responsible use. NORML has also opposed marijuana drug testing for impairment because testing for metabolites only proves prior use, not current intoxication.
However, from a political standpoint, a marijuana test that does accurately measure current intoxication presents some advantage. It might be easier to win votes for marijuana decriminalization or taxation and regulation if the public felt safer because there was an accurate way to catch DUIs.
The problems I see are these - setting a baseline “legal limit” on THC that would have nothing to do with impairment. What if you’ve smoked, waited two hours, then drove, but tested positive? Were you impaired?
I guess the same argument could be made for alcohol - some people at .08 are truly wrecks waiting to happen, but an alcoholic with a tolerance can drive quite functionally at .20. As a society, though, we set .08 (in most places) as the limit, figuring enough people would be wasted at that point to justify the limit.
Where do you set that limit with weed, especially considering that many studies show marijuana-intoxicated drivers to be safer than alcohol-intoxicated drivers? And what about medical marijuana patients? Are we condemning them to life without driving privileges?






