Tuesday, October 13


why don't they have these in every car? You can buy breathalyzers, one of my friends has one. Set up a breathalyzer in every car so that it won't start unless you breathe bellow a .08 or whatever the limit is. Hell we'll assume that they aren't completely accurate and and set it up so that the limit is a.12 to leave room for margin of error. Who could possibly aruge against that. I uunderstand that theory that if you are not a criminal/have no history of drunk driving etc. what right does the state have to put a monitor in nyour car, and most importantly, make you pay for it. BUt the fact of the matter is they already make you pay for airbags, and i'm sure this would be significantly cheaper (it probably already is, but certainly would be if ever mass produced already built into cars) and would probably save more live than airbags also. As an added benefit the drinking age could be lowered back down to 18. THe justification for increasing the drinking age was druunk driving accidents by teens, with this technology that is no longer an issue. This would make too sense all around to ever become law.


Blogger Aras said...

Yes, that would save lives. It would also save lives if everyone's home was randomly searched, and why not, police already patrol the streets right next to the homes!

2:54 PM  
Blogger Trashcan said...

Your analogy is not apt. First off i think it is unlikely that police randomly searching homes would save many lives. But more importantly nobody is discussing state interference. This would be no more intrusive than requiring airbags, seat belts, or any number of specifications about a cars safety. You aren't allowed to just drive anything onto the road because you feel like it, there various specs a car must meet to be legal. Similarly there are laws governing refrigerators and other big appliances energy usage, laws about cars gas mileage etc. Those laws are all similar intrusive, with much less (if any) benefit.

But most importantly, the right not to have your home searched is to prevent government corruption. To prevent government officials from using the power of the government to harass citizens, and to give citizens the ability to stand up against the government (at least theoretically) requiring sobriety devices on cars gives no new powers to the state. It in no way empowers any government official to molest or harass a private citizen. It is rather a means for private citizens to protect themselves from drunk drivers. If you want to have a vote on the matter, that's fine. I believe such a law would be overwhelmingly voted in (i could be wrong.) If you want to say it wrong to require i similar device for seat belts (also probably not to hard to do, my car already beeps at me if i don't put in my seat belt) i could understand because a seat belt is only intended to protect yourself, but preventing people from driving drunk not only protects them, (who cares) but protects the rest of society from them. Obama could probably do more to preserve american life with much less cost, and much less controversy if he enacted such a law than with this healthcare bill.

12:12 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home