I thought young teenagers and first time drivers made up the majority of drunk driving incidents. Not repeat offenders.
<posting for a banned friend>
Read the 9th and 10th amendments you worthless piece of trash.
You too, iceberslim.
So, are you opposed to requiring people to have a license to drive ?
btw, inconvenience doesn't equal a loss of liberty, unless your point is people should be allowed to drive drunk ?
as far as "unreasonable search" argument, that is protection tied to some sort of sanction by the state, such as being charged with a crime, a device that just keeps a car from starting isn't subjecting anyone to a search by the state.
as far as "controlling your own property", we are talking about operating that property on a public highway, that means the individual's "right" and the public's interest, both of which are part of the Constitution, are potentially in conflict, and neither of those rights are absolute, it's a matter of judgement how such a conflict is resolved.
I can tell you that my sister-in-law's sister's rights have been seriously violated by someone or something, while she was driving on a public highway, that did not belong to the drunk driver.
That's a very narrow-minded viewpoint. I would vehemently oppose installing such locks on all cars. I find it an unneccessary expense and intrusion into my life, and an extra risk to my well-being in that the device could malfunction at a time I need the car to start.
I drive every day, and I've had near-misses with obviously impaired drivers in the past. Still, I'm willing to continue to take the risk of being killed by a drunk driver. A device like this might save lives, but I don't see the benefits outweighing the costs.
There's a much better way to combat drunk driving: One strike and you're out. One arrest, and your car is confiscated and your license is forfeited for years. Add probation, hefty fines, and jail time for repeat offenders, and we'll see a significant decline in drunk driving.
I fully support installing the devices in the car of someone convicted of DUI, but I'm completely opposed to installing them across the board. I'll continue to take the risk of getting hurt or killed by a drunk driver before I'll support it.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,147
- 18,699
- 146
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
What does this mean? It means that the rights in the Bill of Rights are NOT the only rights we have, and that a right need not be listed to be a right.
We have LOTS of freedoms and rights not listed in the Bill of Rights.
Many of the Founding Fathers foresaw ideas such as MADD's and protested the enumeration of rights in a "bill of rights." They were afraid it would mean open season on any freedoms and rights not listed.
Sadly, they were right. And the addition of the 9th Amendment has done nothing to stop our slow slide into a fascist nanny state where perceived "safety" of anyone who complains outweighs the right of individual freedom. Where we are limited because of possible risks while still causing no harm.
"Sadly, they were right. And the addition of the 9th Amendment has done nothing to stop our slow slide into a nanny fascist state."
You mean the nanny fascist state that builds and maintains public roads ? Do you see some sort of problem with the public, through their elected government, exercising some control over the use of public roads ?
If you want to talk about private roads, then the unenumerated rights you are relying on might have some bearing, since you are talking about individual property rights then; but what does that have to do with public roads ?
btw, consider race tracks, which are private roads, does the government enforce the same rules that apply to public roads ? I would say they don't.
You mean the nanny fascist state that builds and maintains public roads ? Do you see some sort of problem with the public, through their elected government, exercising some control over the use of public roads ?
If you want to talk about private roads, then the unenumerated rights you are relying on might have some bearing, since you are talking about individual property rights then; but what does that have to do with public roads ?
btw, consider race tracks, which are private roads, does the government enforce the same rules that apply to public roads ? I would say they don't.
dood, spaceships landed on other planets, that obviously means we have the technology to do anything.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Based on this and some of your other postings below you do not understand the argument.
A device that stops my car from starting can be just the ticket to stop me otherwise.
You seem clouded by personal reason than seeing this objectively.
We had hash out a ton of our libertities that have been violated, but that is not the topic here...merely the tactics MADD uses.
Road blocks for one I cannot agree with and about even month I end up stopped in one coming from downtown. I am held up for 20-30mins, I am forced to allow an officer to look into my vehicle and occasionally then asked to step out of it. It doesn't matter if I will miss a movie, concert, or worse a flight. I must wait to be processed.
"A device that stops my car from starting can be just the ticket to stop me otherwise. "
I guess your objection is mostly that the technology isn't reliable enough, and therefore it might prevent a sober person from driving ?
I don't have a disagreement with you on that point, the technology needs to work as it's intended, and be reliable. But I can't agree with the arguments that it's taking away liberty, does requiring a key to start a car take away liberty ?
As far as roadblocks, I agree that is closer to violating Constitutional rights, particularly the presumption of innocence, and requirement of probable cause to let the state conduct a search.
I guess your objection is mostly that the technology isn't reliable enough, and therefore it might prevent a sober person from driving ?
I don't have a disagreement with you on that point, the technology needs to work as it's intended, and be reliable. But I can't agree with the arguments that it's taking away liberty, does requiring a key to start a car take away liberty ?
As far as roadblocks, I agree that is closer to violating Constitutional rights, particularly the presumption of innocence, and requirement of probable cause to let the state conduct a search.
Starting from an assumption that neither device interferes with a sober person starting a car in any way..
Care to explain why one thing required to start a car(a key) does not take away liberty, while another device required to start a car(sobriety test), supposedly does ?
btw, there is no right to break the law, ie drive drunk, stopping someone from breaking the law isn't denying them liberty that they actually have.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Still stupid. Why do you continue to make yourself look bad?
I'll humor you a bit.
First, a car key does not infringe upon the liberty of the car's owner, it protects his liberty by protecting his property. Because that it the key's explicit purpose, while the breathalyzer has a completely different purpose, your argument is beyond apples and oranges.
Second, your next ridiculous straw man was that "there is no right to break the law." Of course, that is correct. However, most of America rarely even drinks, much less drinks and drives, so putting a breathalyzer into each and every single vehicle would be a very ineffective way to stop people from breaking the law and, because doing so also lacks probable cause, you yourself are the one who is actually proposing that the law be broken, in this case through unlawful search (4th Amendment) and violation of a person's right not to have to incriminate himself (5th Amendment). So get off your mighty law-and-order straw man, hypocrite.
The worst thing about all this is how obviously and utterly ineffective and at the same time ridiculously expensive this method would be in preventing DUI. It makes me think that actually preventing DUI is the least of MADD's (and your) intentions.
I full expected you to say exactly what you said regarding the key. Despite your contention that I am stupid, I am well aware what the intended purpose of the key is..
However, this may be hard for you to comprehend, there is a thing known as unintended consequences. The fact is, a key does not function only as intended, it also functions exactly as I said it does. It has the potential to keep a driver from driving a car, either by it's absence, or if it breaks.
So my comparison is exactly apples to apples, which is not a comparison of the REASON for the existence of the key, or the sobriety check, but what the RESULT of the existence of these devices is, on the liberty of a law abiding driver.
Sorry, that you aren't capable of understanding the difference.
All of the rest of your reply is irrelevant to my point, you are bringing up the practicality of implementing some sort of sobriety check, I haven't expressed any opinion about whether it is feasible, only argued whether or not there is some sort of limitation of liberty, in the context of Constitutional rights, in regards to the concept.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Uh... excuse me... who owns and controls the key? Now who would own and control the breathalyzer device? Could the owner of the vehicle legally change or remove the breathalyzer? Oops, that would defeat the purpose, now wouldn't it? And yet it's not a crime to change the locks to your car, or even leave it unlocked (your insurance policy nonwithstanding, we're talking about the law here), now is it?
Don't talk to me about understanding capability when your argument is utterly ridiculous and lacks comprehension of extremely basic and simple concepts.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
thats what bugs me.
who owns the unit and will it be a crime to remove it? and is it a crime to refuse to install one in a used car?
what is next? GPA device on all cars (yes i know some states are trying to force that now)? i mean that could keep track of speeding, if you commit a crime to track it, if you have had a DIU if you go to a bar etc.
How would changing the locks, or leaving the car unlocked, change anything ?
I suppose it's theoretically possible to completely remove the need for a key or other unlocking device, as a requirement to start the car, but so what ?
I've never argued that keys restrict liberty, that's the opposite of my point. So it follows that doing away with keys, wouldn't increase liberty.
As far as a law mandating some kind of sobriety device, or preventing it's removal, that is also falls into the realm of practicality of implementation, which isn't what I've been discussing. As far as the view I've expressed to this point, the entire matter could be voluntary.
As a practical example, the case of my sister-in-law's sister, the car that hit her head-on happened to be a company car belonging to a corporation. I bet that corp. wishes there had been such a device in their car, so their employee couldn't have done what he did.
Likewise, there are people in the real world who don't want to drive drunk, aren't trying to look for ways to do so, at least when they're sober, and might like having something that helped them not to do so, or maybe at least their husband/wife/father/mother, might like to have that sort of ability.
As long as the technology is reliable, I have absolutely zero problem with them forcing you to have one in your car, on your dime, for the next 10 years after a single offense.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter