The electronic fink that will squeal if you drink 04 December 2009 by Jim Giles Magazine issue 2737. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. For similar stories, visit the Crime and Forensics , US national issues and Drugs and Alcohol Topic Guides MEMORIAL day weekend 2007 is one that Lindsay Lohan might rather forget. An actor better known for her off-screen antics than her starring roles, Lohan crashed her Mercedes in Santa Monica, California, while over the legal alcohol limit. She checked into rehab. A month-and-a-half later, in July, Lohan emerged and declared that she would clean up her act. Within days she was again caught driving while over the limit. This celebrity story has a twist, however. As part of her efforts to stay sober, Lohan wore an alcohol-monitoring anklet. When photos of her wearing the anklet hit the press, it was the first time many people had heard of such a thing. Yet devices like these are transforming the way alcohol offenders are dealt with in the US. “In the past weve said that if you dont stop drinking and driving, well stop you from driving,“ says Bill Mickelson, who has worked with the devices as part of a sobriety programme in South Dakota. “That never got to the heart of the problem. So weve developed a way to stop you drinking.“ Stopping drink-drivers from driving didnt always work. Now we have a way to stop them drinking Lohan wore her anklet voluntarily, but most wearers have no choice if they wish to avoid jail. So in the not-too-distant future, could you find yourself wearing such a device if you misbehave after having a few too many? Is this the first step towards a Big Brother age even more intrusive than that envisaged by George Orwell, where the authorities are automatically alerted whenever you consume any substance deemed undesirable? And is this kind of monitoring reliable? Traces of most drugs linger in our bodies for days or weeks, so random tests every few days can detect most use. Alcohol, however, leaves the body so quickly that tests would have to be done more than once a day to be sure of detecting any drinking. Hence the need for the device Lohan wore, called a secure continuous remote alcohol monitor, or SCRAM. It relies on the fact that about 1 per cent of any alcohol we consume leaves the body through the skin. Once an hour, it fires a soft jet of air at the skin, vaporising any alcohol present and measuring its concentration. Every night, the days readings are relayed to the company that makes the anklets, Alcohol Monitoring Systems of Littleton, Colorado, via a modem installed in the wearers home. If it appears that an individual has been drinking, AMS notifies the relevant official. Over the past six years, use of the anklets has spread to almost every part of the US. The courts there have the power to place someone convicted of drunk-driving or alcohol-related violence on probation and require that they abstain from drinking, rather than send them to jail. Judges can also make SCRAM use a condition of bail. Wearing a monitor is a small price to pay for being able to stay at home with your family and go to work as usual, rather than go to jail. It is also cheaper: SCRAM costs about $12 per person per day, compared with about $60 to keep someone locked up. These advantages have led to the rapid adoption of SCRAM across the US since its introduction in 2003: over 110,000 people have worn the anklets and about 10,000 are currently being monitored. Some wearers try to beat the system by placing a barrier between the anklet and their skin, or by removing it altogether, but tampering can be detected. The monitor is fitted with an infrared sensor whose readings change abruptly if objects are placed underneath it, while a temperature sensor triggers an alert if it appears the anklet has been removed from the skin. Wearers often complain that the device is uncomfortable and looks embarrassing. But beyond that the ankle monitors do not cause any serious problems, says AMS spokesperson Kathleen Brown. They can be worn in the bath and while running or driving, though they can interfere with sports such as soccer. AMS says that over 70 per cent of SCRAM users do not violate the terms of their probation or bail, which suggests that the device is helping to reduce drinking and by extension alcohol-related crimes. No rigorous, randomised trials have been carried out to confirm this, but what evidence there is appears positive. In 2005, for instance, South Dakota launched its 24/7 sobriety programme, under which judges can order offenders or those on bail not to drink or take drugs. While other states have similar programmes, South Dakota broke new ground by forcing those on the scheme to submit to round-the-clock monitoring using, among others, SCRAM, breath and urine tests. Although it is not possible to separate the effect of SCRAM from the other forms of testing used, the overall impact has been impressive: