Defending the Truth

Breathalyzer units are being installed in some states for people who have been convicted of drinking and driving.

I'm glad she got a ticket. I have no respect for people who drive drunk. I understand that it is, in part, a generational thing but stupid is stupid. Way back when, my parents and I were following someone who was either drunk or being attacked by a rabid racoon while driving...We called 911 and there was a moment where I was sure we were going to witness a headon collision. The cops tried to get there in time but we followed them home. Once there, they said they couldn't do a thing about it. Unless the law is drastically different in that state, there's no way that ticket will stick and I'm surprised the cop even bothered to write it.


Interesting story, OhDear, thanks for the post.

I don't know how to prevent or even reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads after the bars close short of prohbition but when you sit back and look at it isn't the present method(s) reactive not preventive? What is being done at closing time on the weekends at the saloons all around the country? Are we not now just responding to accident calls? Granted, there must or should be a hightened awareness by the police but I don't know that to be a fact. So, do we just scrape up the victims and simply move on to next weekend?

Unfortunately, sir; that's about all we can do ourselves to alleviate this problem. I'm not trying to say that I agree with accepting this problem- I also do not see how much we can prevent without starting to cut into personal liberties. The most we can do is allow our police departments authourity to conduct random roadchecks; unscheduled. I live in a town where this is done; but it is announced in the newspapers beforehand. I don't see the wisdom in this method. I would prefer that it be done say, by setting up chechpoints at certain intersections and checking license, registration and insurance (if you live in a Mandatory insurance state; I do). I would do this at different intersections (high-traffic ones) about once every two weeks. But I would not advertise this beforehand.

i agree, the breth test before we start our cars is a good idea, they are called ignition interlocks, i have seen first hand the effects of drunk driving, and much should be done to try to prevent future accidents.

You have to balance freedom with protection though. The only people who would have those interlocks are people who have already offended. It's like rape, you can only punish, not prevent.

but you must understand that many offensives could have been prevented if interlocks were manditory. And it is very different from rape because, unlike drinking and driving, rape cannot be prevented. So if the interlocks were manditory that would be wonderful because the car will not start if there is a trace of alchahol on your breath, therefore preventing a person from drinking and driving. Many people can be spared the pain from the effects of drunk driving

I know I wouldn't want a "Big Brother" gadget like that on "my" car. It's like those automotive Black Boxes that some courts are using to reconstruct accidents and convict people.

I'll pass. Not willing to give up my privacy like that.

this has nothing to do with privacy. you keep using examples that do not have anything to do with the principle that you are trying to defend.

Well, maybe you ought to be more clear with this interlock device you are talking about. Because the way you aree describing it, it's like having a brain scan determine whether or not I'm going to speed every time I get behind the wheel.
"I" as a non drinker do not want or need a device on my car to give me permission to drive. Nor do "I", as a habitual speeder, need a device on my car that would give me permission to drive nor record my speed for future reference if I do so. Both are invasions of my privacy. While you interlock may work for habitual drinkers, most Americans would not approve of them in their own cars.