Stopping Drunk Drivers

Interesting exchanges, perhaps even controversial ones, arise when talk of the acceptable degree of governmental intrusion into our personal lives is considered. Nearly all of us agree that our business should remain our business, and that we are not fond of others dictating our actions, or for that matter even knowing what we do once our doors are closed and we are within the confines of our homes. Yet a rational person understands that for a society to operate in a safe and orderly manner, there are times when private activities may so affect the welfare of the general public that government directives must be issued, so as to safeguard its peoples.

Certainly such is the case when considering alcohol consumption. Now in order to further protect those on the highways, certain motorists will be required to install

breath-monitoring gadgets in their cars. Some believe this to be a remarkable development; others are of the opinion that this is again inappropriate government intrusion into private lives.

CHICAGO – Motorists convicted of driving drunk will have to install breath-monitoring gadgets in their cars under new laws taking effect in six states this week.

The ignition interlocks prevent engines from starting until drivers blow into the alcohol detectors to prove they’re sober.

Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington state began Jan. 1 requiring the devices for all motorists convicted of first-time drunken driving. South Carolina began requiring them for repeat offenders.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been conducting a nationwide campaign to mandate ignition locks for anyone convicted of drunken driving, claiming doing so would save thousands of lives. But critics say interlocks could lead to measures that restrict alcohol policies too much.

Users must pay for the fist-sized devices, which in Illinois cost around $80 to install on dashboards and $80 a month to rent; there’s also a $30 monthly state fee. And they require periodic retesting while the car is running.

“It’s amazingly inconvenient,” said David Malham, of the Illinois chapter of MADD. “But the flip side of the inconvenience is death.”

Read more of the AP story here.

As most people, I really don’t want the government peering into my bedroom, telling me where to go to church, how to spend my money, or where to shop for a bag of potatoes. But I do know this: In 1994, a young man, barely exceeding the measurement that marked him drunk, drove his red truck into my husband’s body and forever changed his life.

2 thoughts on “Stopping Drunk Drivers

  1. Sister Buxton:

    Thank you for all of your thoughtful posts! I truly enjoy reading your blog. This is very thought provoking, and definitely an interesting topic. I do believe that we should have our freedom, but in allowing these individuals to drive drunk, it inhibits everyone else’s freedom. I don’t feel comfortable driving home from church on New Years’ Eve, because of the chances of drunk drivers.

    Every year around graduation, our cities in the High Desert lose graduates to drunk driving. After prom, grad night, or parties, these kids get on the road thinking that they are ok to drive, when in reality they are sentencing someone to death when they wreck.

    I am completely, 100% in support of these devices. In my mind they can choose: you either lose your license and don’t drive ever, or you blow into this thing. Both inhibit freedom, but in violation of the law, they forfeit their right to freedom in my mind.

    God Bless,
    Bekki

    Bekki, thank you for coming by, for reading and for the kind remarks. I covet such readers as you.

    Happy New Year to you and your loved ones.

    Like

  2. Sister Buxton:
    People that drinks does not profit from other’s mistakes, they always think it will not happen to them. I told a man one day that had been errested for drinking…”you need to keep your mouth off of the bottle.”

    I cannot stand the smell of liquor. If people don’t know how to act or won’t behave themselves, then someone has to control them. Yet they continue to do the same thing. If a person is errested for drunk driving even for the first time they should never again be allowed to drive a car or truck unless he can prove that he has straightened up his life.. That should be the end of his driving . All in all…PEOPLE NEEDS THE LORD.

    As far as the government prying into my personal business, I don’t need them sticking their nose into my private life.

    I don’t need any government help. Every once in a while I get a call on my phone from someone offering government help. I told them….”I don’t need the government to help me do
    “NOTHING.”

    Brother Webb

    We are much in agreement, are we not.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s