Ignition Interlock Device

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

It would be too easily defeated by having another person take the test. Sort of a good idea though.

I would suggest the increased use of these would cause an associated increase in the number of family dogs invited to go along for a car ride.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[RfukfreeflyingW 0]

My buddy got one as a condition of DUI, and you had to blow into it to start it, but u also had to blow into it every 5 mins while driving or it would kill the engine, and ur car would roll to a stop. It's a pretty cool device, and by making him blow every 5 mins, made it real hard to get around it. there are still ways for the determined

So I thought ur question was just for those who have had DUI's. If you want to know if it's ok for EVERYONE, then no. We as the general law abiding public have not done anything to deserve to be monitored. It's not so much a "dont Inconvience me thing" because I'm fine with periodic check points (some may say that's hypocritical, but they are different.) It's just a matter of principle, especially when drinking and driving is legal to some extent, you wanna stop be on the rode fine, but dont shut off my car automatically until I've oven my judgement dangerous

I know there are sum people that can have a BAL of .08 or higer and still be perfectly fine, and some cant have a BAL of .02 with out being loopy. everyones body reacts differently, and most states legal BAL is low. Once I prove that my judgement isnt good, well then go ahead an sanction me.

----
-God, you are the perfect amount of dumb...

[livendive 8]

Quote

Your position on these two issues, road stops and ignition interlocks, seems contradictory to me. They both inconvenience everyone under the presumption that everyone must be tested in order to catch a few guilty. I see no difference, and I'm against both methods.

If the cops are going to pull someone over, they should have probable cause to believe that something is amiss. They should not be bothering citizens who exhibit no evidence of any violations.

What he said. I'm opposed to the whole concept of testing people who haven't done anything wrong just to see if you can catch someone who has. I see no difference between such a practice and allowing police to periodically walk through our homes unannounced, just to see if we have any drugs or stolen property in our possession. I think our founding fathers were opposed to such practices as well.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Steel 0]

Quote

Well so does going through a metal detector to get on an airplane. It's assumed that people could be carrying a weapon so it's checked before you can board the plane. Would that not be the case with stopping a drunk driver from driving?

Who is going to pay for this thing? Remember the government does not have any money, their money comes from the tax payers (us). Since either we would be forced to pay for this directly or indirectly. Metal detectors are payed from by the banks themselves, airports, or whoever put them there to protect themselves. That is the difference.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.