Alcohol Detection Sensors

[Donald]

I believe the solution for both drugs and alcohol is education and treatment. Not locking people away. Being people using drugs. Not a dealer with his trunk filled with heroin.

So many issues in our society stem from drug use. The violence from cartels in Mexico, government corruption in Mexico, gang violence, organized crime, and migrants at the border because it's too dangerous to live in their South American country.

No one grows up wanting to be a heroin addict. But they were not provided with the tools needed to deal with things that happen in life and end up being a drug addict. Treatment would provide these people with the tools they need to cope with life.

 

[Donald]

The problem that I find with all this is how often do we find that electronic devices get bugs in them and cause problems? How about things like detecting the alcohol content from the mouthwash you used or you took a sip of wine at church?

My entire life has been one of sobriety as I don't particularly like alcohol but now I'm treated like I'm no different from a person who has a record of drinking and driving.

I'm getting tired of this mindset of because everybody else is bad, get line for your daily beating. Punishing the innocent isn't going to straighten out the guilty, it creates more guilty. Maybe of more parents wouldn't have been so obsessed with their kids self-esteem and would have actually parented like mine did, we wouldn't be in as big a mess as we are today.

Tell people drinking is overrated. That's why you don't drink. Actually it is overrated.

I don't drink and my wife likes having a permanent designated driver when she has a drink with a dinner out.

 

[2heeldrive]

Only alcohol? What about weed? Will it slow the car down to the speed limit too? Come to a full stop at lights and stop signs? Always yield?

I guess we are moving toward the state control of personal vehicles.

But, if it saves just one life...

 

[CanAmAndMore]

What's next?
If your cellphone is not locked up in the trunk, the car won't start?
I bet cellphones and drugs cause more crashes than drinking does.
Some of my family was killed last year by a drunk driver, and I still disagree with this. But if they want alcohol testers in cars, then at least do the same for all drugs and cellphones, instead of just punishing one group.
I spend a lot of time way out in the middle of nowhere, and far beyond phone service range. When my pickup or semi truck refuses to start because the tester fails, then what?

 

[MCompact]

But, if it saves just one life...

The reasoning behind every intrusive and costly regulation from the proponents of the Nanny State.

 

[CleanSump]

You've all missed the point. If it's required equipment, you can't put a vehicle on the road without it.
It's not guilty until proven innocent. Its the same as airbags and seatbelts.
It will never be struck down by a court because using the public roads is NOT a right.

Done with the idiot Puff n Stuffs on this website.

 

[Astro14]

You've all missed the point. If it's required equipment, you can't put a vehicle on the road without it.
It's not guilty until proven innocent. Its the same as airbags and seatbelts.
It will never be struck down by a court because using the public roads is NOT a right.

Done with the idiot Puff n Stuffs on this website.

I don’t object to seatbelts and airbags on my car. Look at my cars, safety is a priority. My cars all exceed the requirement.

I do object to the alcohol detector being required equipment.

I do object to added cost and complexity that does nothing to enhance my safety since I don’t drink and drive.

Nowhere did I call driving a right, in fact, I did call it a privilege.

So, I object to your closing sentence, too.

 

[Trav]

I spent most of driving life on 2 wheels, how are they going to do that every 10 min?

 

[SC Maintenance]

A lesson for those who are for this.

South Carolina was one of the last states to pass a seat belt law. It wasn't about seat belts - its because we have a large minority population who have been subjected to police profiling forever, and by having the ability to simply say "they weren't wearing there seat belt" as an excuse to be pulled over, then even if they are once stopped, the police stop is now legal, there was fear it would be used for this purpose.

They finally found a compromise - they couldn't pull you over for a seat belt. If you were pulled over for something else, they could write a ticket for $20 for not wearing your seatbelt. Seemed reasonable. The law was passed.

About a year later, in the dead of night, a change to the law was attached to a completely unrelated bill, that police could pull you over for not wearing a seat belt. There was no time for public debate.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[spasm3]

You've all missed the point. If it's required equipment, you can't put a vehicle on the road without it.
It's not guilty until proven innocent. Its the same as airbags and seatbelts.
It will never be struck down by a court because using the public roads is NOT a right.

Done with the idiot Puff n Stuffs on this website.

With proper sentencing, this could be taken care of without the cost of nanny devices being installed on everyone's vehicles.

This is akin to removing the temptation from a child , rather than teaching rules and boundaries with discipline.

Law enforcements job in my humble opinion is to protect the public first.
I also blame the families who know a father, grandfather etc, that is an alcoholic and drives, and does not turn them in before they kill someone.

 

[KenshinHimura]

Well those front seat belt ignition interlocks from the 70s lasted super long.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

This is exactly what i was going to write. But after I read the initial post, I knew my point was falling on deaf ears.

Wake up, people.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

It's coming folks. Get your affairs in order.

 

[hemitruck]

because that's a reactive solution instead of a preventative one, which isn't much of a solution.

Its really about protecting people from the irresponsible behavior of others; if you don't DnD, what's the issue?

I f they circumvent/ eliminate one amendment, they will eventually do away with the COTUS.

 

[hemitruck]

I believe the solution for both drugs and alcohol is education and treatment. Not locking people away. Being people using drugs. Not a dealer with his trunk filled with heroin.

So many issues in our society stem from drug use. The violence from cartels in Mexico, government corruption in Mexico, gang violence, organized crime, and migrants at the border because it's too dangerous to live in their South American country.

No one grows up wanting to be a heroin addict. But they were not provided with the tools needed to deal with things that happen in life and end up being a drug addict. Treatment would provide these people with the tools they need to cope with life.

Can’t help an addict that doesn’t want help.

 

[Donald]

Can’t help an addict that doesn’t want help.

That's true. But some do. Sobriety is for those who want it not those who need it.

That's why they talk about hitting bottom before you can make progress towards sobriety.

 

[spasm3]

That's true. But some do. Sobriety is for those who want it not those who need it.

That's why they talk about hitting bottom before you can make progress towards sobriety.

We should help them hit rock bottom, by taking their car and putting them in jail.
The sooner that intervention happens, the less chance they kill others.

 

[Dave9]

You've all missed the point. If it's required equipment, you can't put a vehicle on the road without it.
It's not guilty until proven innocent. Its the same as airbags and seatbelts.
It will never be struck down by a court because using the public roads is NOT a right.

Done with the idiot Puff n Stuffs on this website.

You want to keep pretending that using public roads is not a right... but yeah, it really is a right, until you break the law, excessively. Every citizen born has the right to drive a motor vehicle on our roads, until they do something that revokes that.

We have the right to travel and it doesn't need to be stated that by motor vehicle is the default method by those that aren't mentally impaired enough to think that all of society could live in 15 minute cities where they walk or bicycle everywhere.

This is a societal expectation, as evidenced by people who continue to drive even after a license revocation. I don't condone that, but I understand it. For many it is a requirement, and need trumps a right, if not becoming one by the standards and requirements of the majority in the US.

Another way to look at it is, yes it is in fact a right because we still have the right to travel but if the roads are intersecting our travel and we need a vehicle to make that travel, it is what it is. What am I to do if I need to cross a limited access highway that spans a great distance, without a vehicle capable of accessing a limited access highway?

The days of suggesting that using public roads is not a right are over. Think about it, even if you are walking beside the road then you are using it, and I for one have been stopped by police before because it looked suspicious that I was walking instead of in a vehicle on such roads. Can't have it both ways, it is a right to drive until your bad acts or inability revoke that right.

 

[Dave9]

We should help them hit rock bottom, by taking their car and putting them in jail.
The sooner that intervention happens, the less chance they kill others.

No. That just makes their life worse when they obviously had a bad life if they felt like this harmful anti-social conduct was acceptable in the first place. The exception being foolish kids that still have some growing up and learning to do.

You can't punish addicts and make a significant difference. That only works for people who have a lot to lose that aren't controlled by their addiction. Obviously this is not true 100% of the time, we are all just trying to generalize... a bit too much.

Rock bottom is a lot of simpleton nonsense anyway, what is rock bottom to a non-addict is different than that for an addict which usually involves near death experience or loss of a support system when young enough that they can't survive on their own.

Helping someone hit rock bottom is just another way of stating that you'd cast the first stone in a group that stoned someone to death. It's not helpful at all, and you are pretending that intervention means a cure, which is not usually the case unless you buy into fantasy intervention TV shows instead of reality.

Far more often, intervention means the addict becomes a transient and/or overdoses and takes anyone along with them that is in the same boat.

Intervention is for children, if an adult is so weak willed by their addiction that those around them think that intervention will work, then all it really does is further estrange the addict from the few social ties they had left.

What does really work? Finding out what went wrong. Where is the addict now and where they would rather be. Kicking someone who is already down does not accomplish that, quite the opposite. That does not mean coddle a drunk driver, clearly we can't allow that, but the solution is not to make their life worse and then they just drink more. Remember, an addict's mind does not fire on all cylinders.

Locking them up for a month will keep them off the street for a month, so I see the merit in that, but long term, if you make someone's life worse when they were drinking excessively because their life was already bad, it does not improve the situation. We see it all the time, repeat offenders despite the repercussions because the treatment has gone wrong.

How do we fix this? I don't have all the answers but I do know what hasn't worked.

 

[JeffKeryk]

We should help them hit rock bottom, by taking their car and putting them in jail.
The sooner that intervention happens, the less chance they kill others.

Interesting... Most of the posts here are anti-big brother, freedom, etc. You are taking the opposite approach?

 

[JeffKeryk]

No. That just makes their life worse when they obviously had a bad life if they felt like this harmful anti-social conduct was acceptable in the first place. The exception being foolish kids that still have some growing up and learning to do.

You can't punish addicts and make a significant difference. That only works for people who have a lot to lose that aren't controlled by their addiction. Obviously this is not true 100% of the time, we are all just trying to generalize... a bit too much.

Rock bottom is a lot of simpleton nonsense anyway, what is rock bottom to a non-addict is different than that for an addict which usually involves near death experience or loss of a support system when young enough that they can't survive on their own.

Helping someone hit rock bottom is just another way of stating that you'd cast the first stone in a group that stoned someone to death. It's not helpful at all, and you are pretending that intervention means a cure, which is not usually the case unless you buy into fantasy intervention TV shows instead of reality.

Far more often, intervention means the addict becomes a transient and/or overdoses and takes anyone along with them that is in the same boat.

Intervention is for children, if an adult is so weak willed by their addiction that those around them think that intervention will work, then all it really does is further estrange the addict from the few social ties they had left.

What does really work? Finding out what went wrong. Where is the addict now and where they would rather be. Kicking someone who is already down does not accomplish that, quite the opposite. That does not mean coddle a drunk driver, clearly we can't allow that, but the solution is not to make their life worse and then they just drink more. Remember, an addict's mind does not fire on all cylinders.

Locking them up for a month will keep them off the street for a month, so I see the merit in that, but long term, if you make someone's life worse when they were drinking excessively because their life was already bad, it does not improve the situation. We see it all the time, repeat offenders despite the repercussions because the treatment has gone wrong.

How do we fix this? I don't have all the answers but I do know what hasn't worked.

You are talking about a small percentage of addict acloholics. Most never get in enough trouble to hit a bottom, and families just help them through the rough patches.
And not only addict alcoholics drive impaired. Most of us have at one time or another. Luckily we make it home most of the time.