Before you criticize someone you should walk a mile in their shoes, that way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Despite the fact that I am death on drunk drivers, I voted no and here's why. Although a mandatory breathalyzer for someone who has a history of DUI would be helpful, forcing everyone to use one would keep some people with no alcohol abuse from driving. In order for the ignition to work, the driver would have to blow hard into the machine for several seconds. People with advanced lung disease and certain other medical problems wouldn't be able to do that. They simply don't have enough breath.
So I'm against it.
I think it's a good idea in theory - but I don't like the idea of more or less putting that restriction on people who have done nothing to deserve it. As DiAnna pointed out it would be problematic for individuals with any form of respiratory illness. There would be costs to install, costs to maintain and so forth. Those limitations are fine for people who have a history of driving drunk but is essentially unfair to those who follow the law(s).
I'm with you. Why not? The logistics might be a bit difficult, but I'd be willing to pay for it. Your idea of "the government" paying for it doesn't make sense -- neither does insurance companies paying for it make sense...at least to me. But all new cars mandated to have it by 2015? Sounds like a good idea.
Thank you, Quazi!
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." -Thomas Sowell
No, this is a dumb idea. Some states already mandate ignition interlocks for DUI offenders, which I'd be okay with, but even then, they're too easy to bypass. I know a guy who used to have his 4-year-old daughter blow into it so he could drive drunk.
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.