Alcohol Nanny Breathalyzers

American Spectator ^ | 07 aug 07 | Eric Peters

[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.

[driftdiver]

“What’s to stop me drinking after I start the car?”

Good point. They will need to take breath sample at 60 second increments.

[Navy Patriot]

In my opinion, if these devices allow someone with 0.079% BAC to drive, they are acceptable

Well, that's a relief, technology is so reliable these days, especially with the government mandating the design.

[Gabz]

I bow to your wisdom. AWESOME.

There was a time when MADD actually did good, anymore it just wants control, but that attitude comes primarily from who now controls MADD.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

RWJF is 99% funded by its stock holdings in Johnson and Johnson pharmaceuticals. They are a Nanny State control freak organization.

If you like increased tobacco taxes and smoking bans, you’re with RWJF. If you like transfat bans, you’re with RWJF. If you support the Brady Bunch gun grabbers, you’re with them as well. They pump a mess of money into PETA, and I won’t even get into their involvement with the charlatans at the “Center for Science in the Public Interest” which is nothing more than an organization designed and dedicated to destroying the hospitality industry.

[ScreamingFist]

I don’t think it’s a bad idea.

I agree. And let's get a test for driving without a license, no insurance or here illegally. While you're at it, let's also make sure no soccer mom's are driving medicated as well. Don't forget the old people in hats and those rich bastards slinging 40 tons of motor home down the road in a cross wind.......

[EEDUDE]

“What’s to stop me drinking after I start the car?”

Don’t go getting all logical on us here.

[Gabz]

Please see my post #25.........these things are notorious for failure. Failure of one of these can result in fatalities.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

I tend to agree that this proposal is over the top, and that many ways will be found to circumvent it. However, I would cut Bryan some slack. Liberty is a difficult concept that is not very well communicated in the education system that Bryan probably experienced.

I think his heart is in the right place even if he’s a bit too ready to trade liberty for safety. I note his personal details:

“I’m a member of the Free Republic legal team. In the summer of 2001, I flew out to California to help Attorney Brian Buckley (”Clarity”) appeal a judgment of $1 million against Free Republic in the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post copyright lawsuit.

In addition to $1 million in damages, Federal Judge Margaret Morrow (a Clinton appointee — imagine that) awarded the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post over $1 million in attorney fees from their high-priced Beverly Hills law firm. It would have bankrupted Free Republic. JimRob could have run Freepathons for ten years and never would have paid that off.

Brian and I researched the law and drafted aggressive and thorough appellate briefs, based on the fair use exception to copyright law. The lawyers for the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post were afraid they were going to lose everything, and settled for $10,000 and no attorney fees.

You’re welcome. Any time JimRob needs me, I’ll be there. “

[MaxMax]

It's not a bogus argument IMO. Soon we'll all be forced into driving one of these,

And wearing gray suits to work, making the same income. Etc..

[Gabz]

But it doesn't. It just prevents you from driving while drunk, and endangering yourself and other people.

The damned things are a danger to others as much as a drunk driver is.

[AFreeBird]

The design engineers can only go so far in attempting to protect us from the morons out there. This isn't a bad idea.

Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man....

IOW, whatever man can design, some other man can figure out a way around it.

I've already seen several ideas to bypass it, and this from people not even trying, just sitting at their computer and a thought pops into their head. Just wait until someone really puts their mind to it.

You're just advocating an added expense onto an already expensive device, that someone else will come up with a circumventing way/device, for those that really are going to go ahead and do, what you don't want them to do anyway. And end up not making any difference, unless you count even more government intrusion into our lives.

The better bet is continued education and peer pressure to get people to police themselves. It takes longer and is not fool proof (neither is technology) but I'd rather take my chances.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Words fail me when it comes to clueless Freepers who claim to understand personal property rights.

I’m tired of trying to convert them. Let them be absorbed into the Socialist Wave that’s sweeping this country. You and I know where we’ll both be in the end. ;)

[Disambiguator]

While they’re at it, the safety-nazis should require a device that prevents cell phones from functioning inside the vehicle when it is moving.

Also, the car should be disabled if you attempt to drive it barefoot.

There should also be a scanner that detects mascara in women’s purses, so that the car won’t start if mascara is present; that way no-one will try to apply it while driving.

The same goes for any reading material. Many accidents occur because people are reading while driving. The breathalyzer can also be used to detect ink.

These are all potentially hazardous situations, and must be prevented at all costs.

[fanfan]

It’s all nanny state control.

[Gabz]

When the New prohibition takes effect, the second ammendment will be no more than a memory. Probably in about 2-5 years.

I'm not as pessimistic as you are.

I plan on continuing to consume alcohol, use tobacco, and keep my firearms loaded for many years to come.............let someone try to stop me.

[jdm]

What’s to stop me drinking after I start the car?

I think you just came up with another idea for an invention. :O)

[ScreamingFist]

You’re welcome. Any time JimRob needs me, I’ll be there.

Great, now do I not only disagree with him, but feel like an ahole to boot......sigh.....

[Clam Digger]

With rats like that, posting on a conservative site, is there really that much hope?

[Navy Patriot]

As long as it doesn’t prevent people who are under the legal limit from operating a motor vehicle, I don’t think it’s a bad idea.

It's such a good idea that the first place they should be installed is on police cars, fire vehicles and ambulances.

Sheeesh..

[Gabz]

If you can’t parallel park, the car shuts down.

Oh man, don't say that. Parellel parking was why I failed my road test in NYC (back in 197what?)....... thankfully my Florida learner's permit was still valid when I got to my grandparents' after graduation and was able to get a DL :)

All kidding aside, all of your points are right on!!!!!

[mysterio]

The problem could be very well addressed by a private company offering cheap and very accurate keychain breathalyzers as impulse items in the checkout isle of every Walmart.

It must be very expensive to produce them. Otherwise, I cannot understand why they aren't ubiquitous in discount chains. You'd sell a million of them in no time.