Arizona: Ignition Interlock Devices for First Time DUI Offenders

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]


Should the government reduce all speed limits to 10MPH? If not why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF kind of question is that? When someone drives on the road, they are aware that the speed limit is higher than 10mph, and they consent to other people driving higher than 10mph. Nobody consents to being on the road with other drunk drivers. This issue is as close to a consensus as you can get in america. Hell, drunk drivers are even afraid of eachother.

Having an ignition interlock device doesn't reduce your freedom in general. It just reduces your freedom to drive drunk. This makes it much different than other restrictions on freedom that are vulnerable to the slippery slope criticism.

If everyone had one, less people would drive drunk, and everyone would be safer. Insurance premiums would be lower. Would you really feel less free? They'd be developed for a mass market, and come standard in all cars, and therefore would be much less expensive than what they currently cost.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Should the government reduce all speed limits to 10MPH? If not why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF kind of question is that? When someone drives on the road, they are aware that the speed limit is higher than 10mph, and they consent to other people driving higher than 10mph. Nobody consents to being on the road with other drunk drivers. This issue is as close to a consensus as you can get in america. Hell, drunk drivers are even afraid of eachother.

Having an ignition interlock device doesn't reduce your freedom in general. It just reduces your freedom to drive drunk. This makes it much different than other restrictions on freedom that are vulnerable to the slippery slope criticism.

If everyone had one, less people would drive drunk, and everyone would be safer. Insurance premiums would be lower. Would you really feel less free? They'd be developed for a mass market, and come standard in all cars, and therefore would be much less expensive than what they currently cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually agree with your points and like your idea. After all not everyone is free to drive i.e. the state regulates who drivers to begin with. I'm for that as well btw. There a few "flies in the ointment" like:

1. The threshold level of intoxication could very from state-to-state (not sure if it does).

2. People will circumvent the device. My understanding is that they already do.

3. People who are determined to drink and drive will get some older vehicle to drive drunk with that doesn't have the apparatus installed. Believe it or not I've heard that it happens with chronic drunk drivers who are ordered to get one on their existing vehicle.


I don't think it will eliminate drunk driving but I think it would think it would be a step in the right direction.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Should the government reduce all speed limits to 10MPH? If not why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF kind of question is that? When someone drives on the road, they are aware that the speed limit is higher than 10mph, and they consent to other people driving higher than 10mph. Nobody consents to being on the road with other drunk drivers. This issue is as close to a consensus as you can get in america. Hell, drunk drivers are even afraid of eachother.

Having an ignition interlock device doesn't reduce your freedom in general. It just reduces your freedom to drive drunk. This makes it much different than other restrictions on freedom that are vulnerable to the slippery slope criticism.

If everyone had one, less people would drive drunk, and everyone would be safer. Insurance premiums would be lower. Would you really feel less free? They'd be developed for a mass market, and come standard in all cars, and therefore would be much less expensive than what they currently cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having an ignition interlock device reduces your freedom by requiring you to submit to a Breathalyzer test every time you start the car. I don't suppose I'm much opposed to that for individuals who have demonstrated that they are apt to drive drunk (those with DUI convictions), but I am opposed to forcing all Americans who have never demonstrated any proclivity to drive drunk to submit to a Breathalyzer test every time they get in their vehicles.

If there were no logistical drawbacks involved (hypothetical scenario of course), would you be opposed to Drunk Driving Checkpoints on every major intersection? To me it's a similar idea to forcing everyone to submit to Breathalyzer tests every time they get in their own car. How about weapons patdowns for everyone every time you go out on the street? It would arguably make us safer.

I don't think the answer is to pre-emptively make sure law-abdiding citizens can't do anything wrong. In my view, restricting of freedoms should be limited to those individuals who have demonstrated that they can't responsibly handle freedoms along with demonstrating a proclivity to harm or endanger others.

So ignition interlock devices for DUI'ers = quite possibly OK and very possibly a good thing, but ignition interlock devices for everyone = no way, no thank you Police State.

[tomdemaine]

But why not have a system where we could choose instead of forcing non drink drivers to pay for something they'll never use. Imagine if you had two road companies one with super strict rules mandatory breathalysers 3 years proven good driving etc and one where pretty much anything goes drive drunk, no speed limits etc. Then people could make a choice as to what kind of roads they wanted to drive on. Obviously there'd be gradations rather than extremes but this would mean irresponsible drivers paying the full costs of their irresponsibility.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please relay the first report of an interlock device installed on a 20 year old car belonging to a DUI illegal alien. I predict this will somehow continue to slip past the system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, its time to put a stop to this bit of right wing nonsense. I suspect you are talking about a recent Supreme Court decision that immigrants cannot be deported for a DUI convicition. However, this decision talks about revoking LEGAL status and deporting immigrants who have green cards or visas. We still have the right to deport those here illegally, even if they have committed no other crime at all.

This is what happens when you get your news from Rush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't audition for Ms. Cleo's job.

Illegal aliens skate on so many crimes while legal aliens and citizens will pay the full penalty of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO you whine louder and more frequently about being treated 'unfairly' than any representative/advocate for a minority group that I have come across in at least the last few years.

Do you have your own special interest group to help you since you are such a victim?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why can't we just have these installed on all cars? It seems expensive, but it's cheaper than the alternative.



[/ QUOTE ]

do you have an evidence for this statement? or even a little logic to support the that claim, because i honestly don't understand that position at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just one example.
It would reduce the amount of accidents on the road, which would lower insurance premiums, and save a lot of people money. Safer roads = cheaper car insurance.
And then there's that thing you can't put a price on, but some people think it's worth something anyway. It's called human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we cut off everyone's hands no one could pull the trigger of a gun anymore. Hell, if we lobotomized everyone no one could invent WMD's.

[bkholdem]

We should plant camera's in every room in every building in the world, including private homes. Outside everywehere too. Afer all it doesn't reduce your freedom and will save a bunch of lives.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just one example.
It would reduce the amount of accidents on the road, which would lower insurance premiums, and save a lot of people money. Safer roads = cheaper car insurance.
And then there's that thing you can't put a price on, but some people think it's worth something anyway. It's called human life.



[/ QUOTE ]




In that case, it would be much more efficient and effective simply to ban cars. And ban alcohol as well, for that matter.

Now, go ahead and make your collectivist ulitilarian-cost-benefit argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the nonmonetary value of NOT having an interlock device? Unless I have that, I feel like a fat kid on a see-saw, because I fail to see what *exactly* is being so cruelly sacrificed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your willful disregard for the value of other people's freedom, we get it.

[bkholdem]

Personal attack deleted

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

If there were no logistical drawbacks involved (hypothetical scenario of course), would you be opposed to Drunk Driving Checkpoints on every major intersection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, because they'd be run by police, and police abuse their powers all the time.



[ QUOTE ]
How about weapons patdowns for everyone every time you go out on the street? It would arguably make us safer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks. This would be carried out by corrupt cops. It would be expensive as hell, and very intrusive.

[ QUOTE ]
So ignition interlock devices for DUI'ers = quite possibly OK and very possibly a good thing, but ignition interlock devices for everyone = no way, no thank you Police State.

[/ QUOTE ]


Dude. You do realize that "DUIers" are just a very small fraction of the larger set of people who drive drunk. Most people don't get caught.