A Breathalyzer in Every Car?

[Riverskier]

Since when is it a 'right' to drive a car?

It's a privilege.

Again, if you don't drive drunk, you've got nothing to worry about. What BAC defines 'drunk' is another argument all together.

Well, you got me on a technicality. However, simply because an activity isn't protected by the Constituion doesn't mean I am going to support unending government regulation of such activity.

 

[Riverskier]

I guess my overall feeling is that something like this: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=261727&ac=PHnws

wouldn't have happened with such a device in place. I'm willing to give up a bit of personal 'freedom' for something like that. If your opinion differs, so be it.

Well, mine does, but of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even though they sometimes have their costs, protecting personal freedoms is of the utmost importance to me. They seem to be slipping away with every legislative session.

 

[wa-loaf]

We should also have limiters on our cars so we can't ever drive over the speed limit. And automatic breaking so we don't try to sneak through a yellow light. And no radios, phone, ipods or video players in the cars so we are not distracted. Eating or drinking ANYTHING in the cars should be banned. 4 pt seat belts are safer, they should be mandated in all cars ...

 

[Dr Skimeister]

What seems to be lost in the argument of government impinging on an individual's rights with the use of these Breathalizers is that the other drivers on the road have the right of safe passage, not to be interrupted by the alcohol-consuming driver. I don't see the use of a device like this being aimed at saving the drunk as much as I see it as saving the innocent person that gets hit by the drunk.

In theory, if such a device results in lower medical and legal costs that leads to lower car insurance costs, I'm all for it.

Hell, I'd likewise agree with a device that keeps a car from starting if all occupied seat belts aren't buckled. And a device that keeps an overweight driver from entering a McDonald's drive-thru.

 

[campgottagopee]

All this mumble, jumble makes me wonder how the heck did we ever get along without all this modern day "safety". Hell, I remember being a kid, standing up in between my parents in the front seat of my fathers wagon for a 5 hr drive south for our family vacation. Shit man, you'd be thrown in jail in today's "safety" world. I'm thinkin' it's getting a lil over the top for my liking.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Since when is it a 'right' to drive a car?

It's a privilege.

Again, if you don't drive drunk, you've got nothing to worry about. What BAC defines 'drunk' is another argument all together.

I, for one, welcome our new alcohol detector overlords.

What seems to be lost in the argument of government impinging on an individual's rights with the use of these Breathalizers is that the other drivers on the road have the right of safe passage, not to be interrupted by the alcohol-consuming driver. I don't see the use of a device like this being aimed at saving the drunk as much as I see it as saving the innocent person that gets hit by the drunk.

In theory, if such a device results in lower medical and legal costs that leads to lower car insurance costs, I'm all for it.

Hell, I'd likewise agree with a device that keeps a car from starting if all occupied seat belts aren't buckled. And a device that keeps an overweight driver from entering a McDonald's drive-thru.

congratulations! you are all correct. :beer:

everyone else who has posted so far is wrong. :argue:

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Well, mine does, but of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even though they sometimes have their costs, protecting personal freedoms is of the utmost importance to me. They seem to be slipping away with every legislative session.

there is no right to drink and drive. is there? i just don't see how this involves personal freedom in any way.

might as well say that preventing theft, murder or ponzi schemes is an infringement on personal freedom.

 

[dmc]

If you have a record of driving drunk maybe... otherwise this is total bullshit...

 

[Geoff]

I belong to DAMM: Drunks Against Mad Mothers

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

If you have a record of driving drunk maybe... otherwise this is total bullshit...

again, once you have a record, in my view, it's too late. you've already driven drunk and potentially driven over my three-year old. and you probably won't be in a condition to drive once i'm through with you, anyway.

anyway, this is theoretical, since MADD's proposal is for anyone convicted of a DUI to have a breathalyzer (not just serial offenders).

 

[Riverskier]

there is no right to drink and drive. is there? i just don't see how this involves personal freedom in any way.

might as well say that preventing theft, murder or ponzi schemes is an infringement on personal freedom.

Obviously there is no right to drink and drive. As far as personal freedom, I am referring to the freedom to lead our lives with as minimal government interference as necessary. There is always more the governemnt can do to protect the people, but does the end always justify the means? I don't think so. I mean, we could lower highway speed limits to 45 and that would save lives. Heck, we could ban alcohol altogether and at least in theory that would save lives as well. Perhaps not the best examples, but the point is, where does it stop? I agree with campgottgopee, this "safety" world we live in today is getting a bit over the top for my liking as well. To use saving lives as the only qualifying factor for passing a law, there is literally no end to what the government could do to restrict and regulate our activities.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Obviously there is no right to drink and drive. As far as personal freedom, I am referring to the freedom to lead our lives with as minimal government interference as necessary. There is always more the governemnt can do to protect the people, but does the end always justify the means? I don't think so. I mean, we could lower highway speed limits to 45 and that would save lives. Heck, we could ban alcohol altogether and at least in theory that would save lives as well. Perhaps not the best examples, but the point is, where does it stop? I agree with campgottgopee, this "safety" world we live in today is getting a bit over the top for my liking as well. To use saving lives as the only qualifying factor for passing a law, there is literally no end to what the government could do to restrict and regulate our activities.

i agree, things can go too far, but drinking and driving is plainly stupid, while driving 65 mph on a highway vs. 45 mph isn't.

i'm reminded of my mom and her reaction to smoking being banned in restaurants. she thinks it's an affront to HER personal freedom, without thinking about those around her, including the waiters.

we live in a society, and society needs rules. i guess i don't have a knee-jerk reaction against every government "intrusion".

 

[dmc]

again, once you have a record, in my view, it's too late. you've already driven drunk and potentially driven over my three-year old. and you probably won't be in a condition to drive once i'm through with you, anyway.

anyway, this is theoretical, since MADD's proposal is for anyone convicted of a DUI to have a breathalyzer (not just serial offenders).

God forbid you are out somewhere and you've had a beer or 2 and your kid has an emergency... and the car won't start... Or the thing just malfunctions...

what then?

It's a bunch of crap....

 

[mondeo]

i agree, things can go too far, but drinking and driving is plainly stupid, while driving 65 mph on a highway vs. 45 mph isn't.

i'm reminded of my mom and her reaction to smoking being banned in restaurants. she thinks it's an affront to HER personal freedom, without thinking about those around her, including the waiters.

we live in a society, and society needs rules. i guess i don't have a knee-jerk reaction against every government "intrusion".

The problem is where the line is drawn, and that the line isn't the same for anyone.

Endangering others is bad, but there are laws for all the actual bad driving that may result from drunk driving. Similarly, there shouldn't be laws against cell phones while driving. I'm pretty sure Michael Schumacher is plenty capable of handling complex discussions while driving; why should he be restricted by the inabilities of others?

If someone is at risk for a heart attack, should they not be allowed to drive because they might croak at the wheel?

 

[dmc]

The problem is where the line is drawn, and that the line isn't the same for anyone.

Right... I've always taken issue with people that load infants into cars during severe snowstorms so they can go skiing for the weekend..
I don't think it's good to risk a car accident and injuring a child.. Just to go skiing...

But I don't think there should be a law...

 

[Riverskier]

i agree, things can go too far, but drinking and driving is plainly stupid, while driving 65 mph on a highway vs. 45 mph isn't.

i'm reminded of my mom and her reaction to smoking being banned in restaurants. she thinks it's an affront to HER personal freedom, without thinking about those around her, including the waiters.

we live in a society, and society needs rules. i guess i don't have a knee-jerk reaction against every government "intrusion".

Well, clearly most of society agrees with you, thus the proliferation of what I see as these government intrusions.

And as far as banning smoking in restaurants, I am against that as well. I think that infringes on the rights of the restaurant owner to operate their business as they see fit. If customers don't like it, don't go. If the employees doesn't like it, work somewhere else.

Bottom line, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I realize I am in the minority with many of mine. Back to work.

 

[Glenn]

Well, clearly most of society agrees with you, thus the proliferation of what I see as these government intrusions.

And as far as banning smoking in restaurants, I am against that as well. I think that infringes on the rights of the restaurant owner to operate their business as they see fit. If customers don't like it, don't go. If the employees doesn't like it, work somewhere else.

Bottom line, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I realize I am in the minority with many of mine. Back to work.

Just so you feel better....I'm in 100% agreement with your smoking views.

 

[snoseek]

Just so you feel better....I'm in 100% agreement with your smoking views.

Really? I think most smokers would rather step outside to smoke rather than sit in a smoky bar all night.

 

[deadheadskier]

Really? I think most smokers would rather step outside to smoke rather than sit in a smoky bar all night.

Count me as an 'outdoor' smoker. I haven't had a cig indoors in years and don't understand how anyone would want to sit in that kind of environment. pretty gross

 

[Riverskier]

Count me as an 'outdoor' smoker. I haven't had a cig indoors in years and don't understand how anyone would want to sit in that kind of environment. pretty gross

I quit 2 years ago, but when I was a smoker, I loved smoking in bars, and was never bothered by the smoke. Most of my friends agree. As far as whether restaurants should be permitted to allow smoking, my view has absolutely nothing to do with my personal preferences, but everything to do with what I consider to be right and wrong.