• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandated breathalyzers in cars?

Should a car be required to have a breathalyzer?


  • Total voters
    34
Perhaps, on a state level, if a person has multiple DUI's and still has their DL (which is a stretch), then sure. Otherwise, no. So I had to vote "maybe".
 
Next they'll put a breathalyzer on your gun, your beer bottle, and your pecker, to make sure you're not too drunk to use those.

A breathalyzer on your pecker:lamo

"Come here, baby, and blow into this thing. Maybe you're sober enough to make it work"

How about an idiocy detector? Keep it limp until that bigger head starts to function?
 
I say it should be a National program!!! Why? Because people take is sooooooooooo seriously. One DUI and you cant drive for a YEAR. Bye bye job. Oh! And you have to see a parole officer every month for 2 years. Oh! And you have to pay $500 for a alcohol evaluation test. THEN you have to pay $2500 for a alcohol treatment course that you MUST show up to (how are you going to get there?) 2 -3 times a week for six months!!! Oh! And there is the $3,500 - $10,000+ lawyer fees. Oh! there is the police impound fee of $300 - $600 you must pay in order to get your car out of the towing companys impound lot.... THEN you have to pay the towing company $250 for the tow and then $75 for every DAY it was in their lot!!!! THEN there is the municipality cost.... ranges from $3K to $5K plus all the court costs which varies but is around ANOTHER $5K!!!!!!
Then after a year after your freakin life has been destroyed, you can get your license back. BUUUUT... there is a fee! Generally $500 - $1000 MORE!!!!!
Oh yea..... every time you see the probation officer..... that will cost you $50 ;)

All for having a few beers. Youre a evil EVIL person!

See!!! This DUI stuff must be VERY serious! More serious than acutal...... CRIMES! :shock: People must be dying left and right! Oh...... wait. They ARENT! :doh You have a better chance to be struck by lightning! Or die by an aspirin overdose! YOu are 800% more likely to be killed in a hospital by malpractice than get killed by a drunk driver!!!!

Please see the following website: DAMM Home
 
It is a large chunk of momentum for sure. However, the portion of auto fatalities which are alcohol related has been decreasing (as a percentage) and now falling asleep/tired driving is right up there with DUI. End of the day, you will never have zero cases of DUI. Not so long as drinking is legal and driving is legal. It's ridiculous to think it can get down to that level.

But why is it necessary to pursue a zero DUI goal? A reduction from 11,000 annual alcohol-related fatalities to 2,000 would be a big improvement and well worth the cost of the technology (again, assuming it was effective).

Ikari said:
And in the end, I'm not willing to accept these sorts of infringements upon our rights; these aggressive style Big Brother searches before we can use our property or drive on the roads that we pay for. Drinking and driving can be dangerous, but the government is more so. I'd much rather take my chances with a few drunks on the road than begin to authorize horrible abuses of power and constant monitoring of the People by government goons.

I would be opposed to reporting the results of a car's breathalyzer to the police. But if it's just something you have to do in order to start the car, and isn't being reported to the government, then I don't think the Big Brother argument flies. As for it being an infringement of our right to use our property or to use our public roads...well, you could say the same thing about ANY traffic safety law, including DUI laws themselves. The bottom line is that at some point the lives saved are simply more important than a person's right to be reckless.
 
It's too bad they haven't come up with an idiocy detector. A working one would eliminate 99% of all traffic accidents and make the highway patrol redundant.

It's coming out in a few years. It's called the self-driving car, and it's slated for commercial release sometime around 2017.
 
Did he sit in the car fuming (becomming mad at the world) or did the use his brain and think that he should act as a responsible adult ?
A smart man would take a 20 minute walk and think about things at the same time.

He is the "mad at the world" type. He was fuming.
 
Terrible idea. On a purely practical level, breathalyzer systems are easily bypassed by cunning drunks, so there would be minimal benefit, while all of us would have to endure the cost of installing these on a universal level. On a theoritical level, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This proposal forces me to submit to a search everytime I want to use my property, and as a bonus, I have to pay for the priveligde! No thanks.

I know I've said this before, but I think the pendelum has swung too far on the issue of drunk driving. Legal limits are too low. Penalties in many states are too high. And too many intrusive policies are pushed through under the guise of fighting drunk driving. All that said, someone who is truly drunk has no business behind the wheel and should be punished severely, but we've flown past the point of diminishing returns and continue to go even further for ever shrinking benefits.
 
Terrible idea. On a purely practical level, breathalyzer systems are easily bypassed by cunning drunks, so there would be minimal benefit,

"Cunning drunk" is kind of an oxymoron. Besides, I don't think that most people who drink and drive have any desire to subvert the system, they just put themselves in unfortunate situations. Quite often, they might not even know that they're too drunk to be driving. A breathalyzer in their car that refuses to allow them to drive would tell them what they should have already figured out. If nothing else, it serves as a reminder to them that they shouldn't be doing what they're doing.

Just because it's POSSIBLE to disable or circumvent them doesn't mean that most drunk drivers WILL disable or circumvent them. In fact, I would bet that only a minority of them would do so.

Psychoclown said:
while all of us would have to endure the cost of installing these on a universal level. On a theoritical level, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This proposal forces me to submit to a search everytime I want to use my property, and as a bonus, I have to pay for the priveligde! No thanks.

It's not forcing you to submit to a search if the results aren't being reported to the police.

Psychoclown said:
I know I've said this before, but I think the pendelum has swung too far on the issue of drunk driving. Legal limits are too low.

A person whose BAC is at the legal limit is already a hazard to himself and other people. The American Medical Association has found that "alcohol causes deterioration of driving skills beginning at 0.05% BAC or even lower," and advocates a legal limit as low as 0.05.

Psychoclown said:
Penalties in many states are too high. And too many intrusive policies are pushed through under the guise of fighting drunk driving. All that said, someone who is truly drunk has no business behind the wheel and should be punished severely, but we've flown past the point of diminishing returns and continue to go even further for ever shrinking benefits.

If that's true, then you should welcome mandatory breathalyzers. It would prevent people from suffering those high penalties by taking the option of driving drunk off the table, and it would reduce the need for intrusive policies like mandatory DUI checkpoints (which I agree are too intrusive).
 
1984 big brother intrussion into our lifes. No thankyou.

bigbrother.jpg
 
You lack understanding of what these instruments do

Maybe the one lacking understanding is you, Caine. Lack of understanding towards the People, lack of understanding towards rights and liberties and the necessities it takes to maintain them. Some of us don't want to be babysat by the government. Have its goons always looking over our shoulders, putting electronic devices on our property so we can only use it if we do what the government says.

Free is risky, free is not safe; never has been and never will be. I'd rather take my chances with the drunks on the road than an overbearing, controlling, tyrannical government.
 
The bottom line is that at some point the lives saved are simply more important than a person's right to be reckless.

The bottom line is that at some point safety is simple not worth slavery.
 
Why the kurfuffle over drunk driving in the USA. The herd needs thinning and I would think this would be a good way to get rid of some of the dumbasses. Sure there would be some collateral damage but wouldn't it be worth it to get those stupid enough to drive while drunk out of the pool?

.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the one lacking understanding is you, Caine. Lack of understanding towards the People, lack of understanding towards rights and liberties and the necessities it takes to maintain them. Some of us don't want to be babysat by the government. Have its goons always looking over our shoulders, putting electronic devices on our property so we can only use it if we do what the government says.

Free is risky, free is not safe; never has been and never will be. I'd rather take my chances with the drunks on the road than an overbearing, controlling, tyrannical government.
Wow aren't you jumpy?
I said he lacks the understanding of what the instrument does.
Did I say that I support mandatory breath instruments in all vehicles? No, I didn't, and I voted as such.
Maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about the INTENT of someone's statement.

I stated he lacks the understanding because his post makes it obvious that he believes the government would have a way of monitoring what you blew into the instrument, thus the "Big Brother is watching you"
The instrument works by blowing into it and as long as you are not over the preset limit, the vehicle's ignition will work and the vehicle will start. There is no "reporting" this information anywhere, thus there is no "WATCHING" done.

Stop jumping to conclusions of idiocy and then ranting on about "RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES" again. I know you just love to try to find a reason to throw your soundbyte out there where you think it fits. But your entire response to my statement is off base.
 
Or a cunning patriot, depending on your point of view.

So... violating probation is a "cunning patriot"...

Gotcha.
 
The bottom line is that at some point safety is simple not worth slavery.

"Slavery"? Give me a break. Is it slavery for the government to take away your god-given right to drive on the left side of the road too? :roll:

A breathalyzer would just be something you have to do in order to start your car. Considering that you're driving on government-funded roads and you're in close proximity to other motorists/passengers, you absolutely should have to conform to acceptable standards of safety. And if breathalyzers could reduce the number of drunk-driving fatalities without triggering lots of false positives, they absolutely would be worth the cost.
 
No, a smart man would use an air compressor.

Breathalyzers could presumably be designed to check temperature and CO2 content before giving a pass.



.02
 
So... violating probation is a "cunning patriot"...

Gotcha.

Well if we're talking about mandated for everyone, not someone simply on probation; then yes you could say so depending on your point of view.
 
Breathalyzers could presumably be designed to check temperature and CO2 content before giving a pass.



.02

Oh no, I'd need some form a tube with a resistive heater on it.
 
I don't think you can get the gas ratio so easily. You can store and reheat air or piss but not breath.
 
Last edited:
"Slavery"? Give me a break. Is it slavery for the government to take away your god-given right to drive on the left side of the road too? :roll:

A breathalyzer would just be something you have to do in order to start your car. Considering that you're driving on government-funded roads and you're in close proximity to other motorists/passengers, you absolutely should have to conform to acceptable standards of safety. And if breathalyzers could reduce the number of drunk-driving fatalities without triggering lots of false positives, they absolutely would be worth the cost.

Taxpayer funded, I pay for those roads. Why not something that records the results and can be checked by cops? Why not something which can transmit those results to the police should you fail too often? Hmm? Tired driving is now on par with drunk driving for fatalities, texting and driving is well more dangerous. But we're caught in this DUI is the devil sort of stuff and running off on our righteous crusades against it without thinking of the negative consequences. The encroachment on privacy, constant monitoring by the authorities, and price of the device and its monthly fees is too much for this result. Drunk driving causes something like 30% of the deaths (and that number is probably slightly exaggerated as they use data for anyone with BAC in it greater than 0), there's a good 70% left to try to deal with. And while for certain age groups, it can be one of the leading causes of death (dependent upon personal health), it's still something which the vast majority of people do not encounter. The probability of the accident does not justify extensive and aggressive policing methods against the People.

BTW, if you wanted this in a car, don't get a vanilla shake and try to drive right away.
 
We'll ban vanilla shakes. Problem solved.
 
I don't think you can get the gas ratio so easily.

Yeah, it would be tough. So would be the broad spectrum analyzer necessary to do what you claim to do. A temperature gauge, sure. But a broadband molecular spectroscopy set up...not so much. The handheld devices they use for roadside are calibrated for alcohol and even that isn't the best measurement equipment for the job. It's why those results are not admissible in court; you have to use the much more sophisticated gas chromatograph in the station. Plus these things hit plenty of false positives.
 
Back
Top Bottom