What do you think of the new DUI laws in certain states where they now require the driver to install a breath?
monitoring system to their ignition to monitor the alcohol levels in the blood? Sounds like drastic measures to me. It's all caused from the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers group. Is this all about money? or all about saving lives? The cops will tell you it's about saving lives, but it all comes ...
monitoring system to their ignition to monitor the alcohol levels in the blood? Sounds like drastic measures to me. It's all caused from the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers group. Is this all about money? or all about saving lives? The cops will tell you it's about saving lives, but it all comes down to dollars my friends. Everything in life is about money, it's all about the benjamins. Also, I think that these laws will hurt alcohol sales at bars and restaurants. People will simply stop going out. They will drink more at home. What do you think of that?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_re_us/dui_legislation_ignition_locks
And no, I've never gotten a DUI before, knock on wood
I’d agree that the D.U.I. laws are getting more and more draconian. The law you are referring to was enacted here in Illinois. And, like you say, it was enacted in response to lobbying efforts by M.A.D.D. These people in M.A.D. are goofballs. But, legislators are afraid to stand up against them. It’s nonsense. However, it’s not really about money.
"It’s all caused from the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers group"
No, it’s caused by drunk drivers. Have a problem with it? Don’t drink and drive.
Personally, I think you should lose your license for life on the first offense, and if you kill someone while drunk driving, you should hang.
Oh, so people will drink less while out and more at home?
That’s called a GOOD thing!
i think those things SUCK BAD… i had a friend that had one on their car.. i could NEVER make it work (and i don’t mean it always read alcohol; i mean i was unable to get it to read at all)
.. it is NOT as simple as they make ya think…
they are notoriously unreliable and cost the person with them installed 70 bucks a month to have them reset and read.. so yes.. it is all about $$
If they use it on habitual offenders I say great if they can save an innocent person from being killed by a drunk driver.
If responsible people want to go out and have a few drinks I think they will make arrangements to do so.
And I believe it will help alcoholics who drive save them selves from another dui and legal fees.
I think people who go to restaurants usually only have a few drinks and do not intend to become intoxicated, food helps to absorb the alcohol
and if I am out with friends and one becomes drunk I will drive them home.
Maybe you should look at it this way.
It gives drunks a way to drive – without drinking – legally.
That way they can get jobs – and I don’t have to support them while they collect welfare!
My state (NC) has been doing this for years with people that blow a certain amount or who are habitual drunks. The thing you failed to read was in the very first sentence of the story you cited. These are installed in the vehicles of people that are convicted of DWI. So they are not caused by MADD or some law maker trying to get more money. They are caused by the actions of the person that chooses to go out and drive drunk. This program will certainly save lives if it keeps some pinhead from going out there and driving drunk with the innocent public. It never ceases to amze me how some people seem to have no problem with hopping into a car and driving when they know they are trashed.
I’m not aware of a single police department or court that collects any funds from the installation of an interlock ignition device. They are installed by private companies.
In addition, it is not mandatory. The person has two choices: don’t drive, or have an interlock ignition device installed. The device allows them to continue to drive to work and/or school, so their entire family does not get punished for their lack of judgment.
I would say that makes for a win/win situation.
As far as bars and retaurants losing money, it is against the law to serve an itoxicated person, so there should be no difference there.