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 down ...
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?
And no, i'm not some bitter dui offender, I've never gotten one, knock on wood.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_re_us/dui_legislation_ignition_locks
I guess it’s better than prison (for the offender) but prison might be better for society. As for MADD anytime I’ve seen them on TV or speaking, it’s always somebody who’s kid was driving drunk or out drinking and riding around with somebody else who was drinking and wrapping themselves around a pole (and yes, I know that drunks kill others, but they seem to kill themselves more). It sounds like they want to punish others for their guilt.
I think we’re one step away from having chips implanted.
Great idea. Should have been done a long time ago.
This should be the result instead of ruining people’s lives with DUI records for 1st offenses.
While I am one to have the government out of every aspect of our lives, I agree with this. I think it is a great idea, and will save millions of lives.
i think the breath tester will be in all cars in the future, blow before your car will start and if you fail it will not start
The larger problem is how much intrusion into the life of the everyday citizen by the federal government will the public tolerate. As a non-drinker and non-druggie, I am not affected personally. But, the liberals who like the government will regret the surrender of personal freedoms to the central government of your country. But, it will be too late.
Too bad you couldn’t come up with a real question on your own instead of just repeating the NEWS RELEASE!
Just post your ‘comment’s in any of the news BLOGS about it…not here…and you’ll have results.
Personally, having been involved with drunks and driving…I’m all for it…period. Anyone that thinks it’s ‘okay’ to drive drunk or buzzed…has NO RIGHT to drive anymore.
If it saves lives, who the hell cares what it costs the drunk or bar owner? Anything that can help keep habitual offenders off the road, I’m all for. The damage they cause both financially and emotionally is far more expensive than monitoring them. The cost for the breathalyzers is theirs anyway, and it should be.
And as far as it hurting sales of alcohol, bar owners should be more diligent anyway in cutting people off when they are obviously over the limit, simple greed keeps them pouring the drinks. Screw alcohol sales, these people should stay home, there they can drink themselves into oblivion for all I care, at least they only hurt themselves.
Judges have been sentencing habitual DWI offenders to exactly this kind of measure for years, over a decade even.
It is nothing new, that it is now being required simply means the cost of making the machine has dropped to the point (here is where you bucks comes into it) to the point that it is not an extreme hardship to require one.
I don’t drink so I don’t drive drunk. Since you are knocking on wood it sounds to me like you drink and may drive while under the influence. You know that is wrong, MADD knows it is wrong and the courts know it is wrong. So I don’t see any problem with trying to prevent it from happening and focusing on people who have had a history of breaking the law.
"It’s amazingly inconvenient," is one quote when I find it is better than the alternative which is not being able to drive at all, now that is inconvenient.
The article says "In practice though, they are rarely ordered unless laws mandate them, according to MADD" so they are just trying to get the devices used more. I agree it is expensive to use and rent the device as well as have it tested frequently, but it is better than losing the chance to drive you car. Remember that driving is a privilege not a right. I like to enjoy the privilege that when I drive some drunk won’t be luking around waiting to hit me and possibly take me out of this world.
The article also says "The law taking effect in Washington state actually relaxes penalties on drunk drivers, allowing them to avoid a previously mandatory license suspension by getting an interlock. The bill’s author, Rep. Roger Goodman, said too many motorists were driving with suspended licenses." Meaning that this is a way of forcing compliance with the law and that is hardly unreasonable.
It would be unreasonable to expect you to have one of these devices just because you occasionally drink, you have not committed a crime and you probably know you limit and try not to drive drunk. But, this allows those who don’t know their limit and do drive drunk and who get caught at it to still drive. Suspending their license dosesn’t work so we need some way to force them to follow the law.
Instead of being against it you should be for it because if you do get unlucky and you do get caught then with the addition of this device you can still drive and most jobs require a commute that would be too hard to do with only public transportation.