Posted on 08/07/2007 4:59:35 PM PDT by rellimpank
"Pre-emptive war" got us into a real mess in Iraq. So maybe we ought to think twice before adopting similar measures when it comes to traffic law. Specifically, when it comes to an idea floated by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to require that all new cars be fitted with an ignition interlock that can detect alcohol in the driver's system -- and shut the car down if it does.
Several large automakers (including GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda) also support the idea -- and are working on ways to get these things into new cars, maybe within the next two or three years, if not sooner.
Sounds OK in principle -- sort of like the idea of liberating Iraq. The devil's in the details, though.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I think society should focus on holding individuals responsible for any personal or property damage that they cause another party. That sure would narrow things down from your wide and general “alcohol is a bad problem for society” agenda. In addition, it would make people more aware of ALL problems they cause others.
“...accepting and dealing with facts of alcohol abuse . . .”
If no personal or property damages are caused to another individual, how would you proport that society “deal” with alcohol abuse?
Gotta go for now. I look forward to your endorsement of government intervention when no harm is being caused to other parties.
I'm responsible enough. No chargeable accidents against me in 35 years driving. Driving Impaired is a major factor in accidents BUT SPEED is the real killer drunk or sober and any cop will tell you this. It is driving beyond your skill capabilities and road conditions that kills most persons on the road. Now how about we put governors on all vehicles so nobody goes over 55 MPH? I don't care how drunk somebody is they hit a person slow enough the chances of causing death are nil. No I don't support that either as there is situations which call for people driving to the fullest extent of the abilities in life and death situations.
I knew a man who drove when he was so drunk he could not stand up but rather crawled. He never hit anyone or caused a wreck. He never drove over 20 MPH drunk or sober. The cops knew he was drunk as well most likely as everybody in a three county area knew the man. I think he died at an old age of cancer.
I am real sick and tired of the it is never the drunks fault he's just sick and needs help B.S. Nobody forced that first drink down someones throat and yes I've drank my share myself. Age and maturity taught me not to do it driving. Most of the time I didn't anyway. Not one DUI charge and only one FST given me by a cop and I was very sober. My eyes were bloodshot from an all day session of Fire Fighting school and Barney swore I was on drugs. I had been driving 450 miles and was stiff as a board. Barney thought I could get out and walk a straight line. Well I can't pass a FST period except blood alcohol. I can not do the other test they give. Never mind the fact I had ID stating my vocation plus military ID.
Taking a car away from a drunk or disabling it is like trying to take a gun away from a determined criminal it's just not going to happen. You make the machines and I'll keep figuring out ways to disable them so will drunks when they are sober.
A novel idea comes to mind. For habitual offenders of DUI how about jail time where they must actually not be able to drink and can not drink plus MANDATORY Treatment. A year should do it perhaps? Three years the next time. Five the next. Put the burden of punishment and responsibility for treatment where it belongs rather than making everybody else in the nation prove they are not drunk.
Everybody it seems has their precious Nanny State good idea law to support. For some it's seatbelts. For others it's kid seats of which only the Lord himself could ever figure out the actual correct way to use them for their eight year old???? The so called experts sure as the devil can not agree on it. I loathe those death traps but yet some Moron or rather insurance companies all powerful lobby sold the government on the idea everybody must have them for da Childrens sake. Well they don't fit in my 78 Chevy K-5 worth a hoot. I drove my 5 year old grandson to school all last year without the booster because I knew in my heart and by common sense he was safer in an old fashioned seatbelt. If someone hit us they were likely going to be the ones hurting anyway.
I read this entire thread, plus the thread about fatasses being charged more by their employer for insurance..... and found that just about every one of FR’s favorite residing rabid smoker-hating, ‘convenient’ conservatives -At Bay, Ditter, Moomman69, A CA guy, Raycpa,Whee The People,on and on-were conspicuously MIA. But also noticed that Quix Are For Kids adequately filled in for them by somehow hijacking the thread and turning it to smoking and an evangelical meeting. Lord, there are SO many on this board that are for total government control over every aspect of ourv lives.
I'm a non smoker by most definitions yet I am against the overzealous no smoking laws. We had a practice in the Navy of a designated smoking area and it wasn't outside in the cold but a lounge. Most smokers I know would agree with such an arrangement. I don't allow it in my home because of my wifes health issues {non smoking related}. My neighbors mother lived to be in her late 90's and smoked all her like as does my neighbor. No noted medical conditions from it. Her mom died of Alzheimer's actually. Some persons seem to be immune to the ill effects of it and those are the ones medical science needs to study.
It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see who is behind these Nanny Laws. It's largely the insurance corporations who own our elected leaders. Most I would say about 75% of all our laws now on the books are directly related to cost containment or loss prevention for Underwriters. They are the most powerful lobbying group in the nation. I find them {Pinsurance companies} as being practioneers of the third oldest profession known to man who hires the second oldest professionals to do to us what the oldest known profession does to all who pay if you can follow that line of though :>}
Too bad.
I haven't questioned your assessment on alcohol based upon your background, I see no reason you should question mine on a subject you admit to not examining.
If no personal or property damages are caused to another individual, how would you proport that society “deal” with alcohol abuse?
= = =
It amazes me that the blatant incongruency in the above sentence seems to have escaped your awareness and logic.
Guess I should not have been so surprised.
Most live in abject fear of true liberty, just as in the Revolutionary War period.
They have to be pushed, pulled, and humiliated along just to develop a short-term semblance of reasonableness or appreciation of liberty.
The sad news is that it doesn't hold.
As soon as they develop another pet peeve, it's off to the races with their god-like legislators, law enforcers and prison guards to encumber the rest of us with their crap.
I think you are putting things in my fingers.
Which, I’m generally quite in disfavor of.
I’ve written about alcohol ABUSE.
Is that a mystifying word?
Innocent victims of "drunk" drivers in this country number less than the number of people drowning in bathtubs, toilets, or mop buckets.
Where is "Mothers Against Mop Buckets"?
I’m often torn about how to handle even guilty multiple DUI folks.
I certainly believe in forced treatment—residential of at least 90 days.
But by then, usually, the guy has lost his job; the wife and kids or shack-up and kids are worse off than ever etc. etc. etc. yadayadayada.
No easy solutions. Certainly society can throw the book at them.
I think the military finally wised up . . . when I last checked, it was 2 strikes and 2 chances at treatment. 3rd, you were out with a bad conduct or some such.
And, there was some progress made against the Navey etc. traditions of breeding drunks.
But lots of employers just slice a guy off first thing. Which, is certainly reasonable from a number of perspectives. But . . . without treatment, it doesn’t do him or society that much good.
And, treatment has to be long enough and well ran enough that the guy learns a WHOLE DIFFERENT WAY OF LIVING and coping with the pains and discomforts of daily life. For some thick-headed stubborn souls, that can take a bit.
Incarceration is an option. I think an ankle bracelet and confinement at home and to job after treatment would likely be more cost effective and more effective generally. Anywhere near a bar in a given period of months and it’s instant 30 days in the clink or some such.
I think the family system needs to be involved in treatment, too. Don’t need the little woman sabotaging treatment because she needs someone to be needy and dependent on her.
Certainly the kids need help. Look at Billdo Klintoon. Don’t need any more of those!!!
Actually, I’m mostly p*ssing in the wind. Nothing significant is going to change before the whole world goes to hell in a hand basket. And then there will be a long list of much more urgent priorities.
Still, if I’ve helped wake anyone up and pay more attention to the consequences of alcohol abuse, it’s worth it.
by somehow hijacking the thread and turning it to smoking and an evangelical meeting. Lord, there are SO many on this board that are for total government control over every aspect of ourv lives.
= = =
Is it your custom to post brazen falsehoods about other Freepers?
IIRC, SOMEONE ELSE raised the smoking issue FIRST, hotshot.
Guess I missed the evangelical meeting—would have been happy to attend but I totally missed all evidence of it. Did you fabricate that, too?
Actually, I lean much MORE toward (not 100% absolutely in all respects on all issues all the time) libertarian than total government control. But I realize you’re not interested in facts.
I think your keyboard should give you an IQ test before you can post. Stupidity is a factor in 40% of totalitarian ideas.....
Yeah, the insurance companies are out of control, imho.
And, yet, when the traumas start hitting relentlessly, they will plead bankruptcy and not do diddly squat for their faithful serfs. GRRRR.
I have exammined such in the past. And, I have a friend in Hawaii who’s something of an expert on the other side.
I found his assertions and analyses convincing.
Therefore, my skepticism is something I’m still comfortable with and consider factually based.
Yes, some folks seem to have immunity from the harms of tobacco. But they are a small minority.
I have no trouble acknowledging that you are evidently a much more currently up on such things from your perspective, than I am from mine. Cheers.
Kowtowing or kissing your feet or butt you won’t get.
Whoops, people are also killed by saddle stock.
So you don't like drinking or smoking.
Is it okay with you if we have a steak?
The day you start answering to me instead of to God . . .
we are both in deep doodoo.
The thought of such is actually repugnant.
The majority of the experts I rely upon are also "on the other side" and I always have an enjoyable time debating with most of them.
My favorite happens to be an M.D. who is not only an epidemiologist, but also a Proffesor at the Bostone College School of Public Health and one of the pioneers of the anti-tobacco movement.
Dr. Siegel and I rarely agree on anything, but we both have a great deal of respect for the knowlege of each other on the subject. And that will be the last I will say on this thread on the subject of tobacco, as it is not the topic of this thread.
This thread topic is also not about alcohol abuse, which as you correctly point out, is a major problem. As I stated to ou many posts ago, it is something of which I have first hand experience.
The topic is about what is happening in our society that will cause companies to design their products for the lowest common denominator. I do not drive after consuming alcoholic beverages, why should I have to pay an additional price to purchase a vehicle because there are other idiots that will? Let them pay the additional price for the equipment.
Now that the manufacturers are starting to put these into new vehicles it is only a matter of time before our nanny state government will mandate them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.