New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Jan 2, 1:10 PM EST

New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers

By MICHAEL TARM
Associated Press Writer


CHICAGO (AP) -- 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.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DUI_LEGISLATION_IGNITION_LOCKS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
 
I can see it now.


"Hey Earl, can you get your ol' lady to come blow my car so I can get home?"
 
Hmm maybe not.... might be aiding and abetting a DUI. If someone dies as a result you could goto jail for starting their car?
 
Actually, you have to blow it again while you're driving to prove you're not drunk, or else an alarm goes off in the car, that would alert nearby police.
 
Watermark said:
It's perfectly reasonable to put safety requirement on people who've broken the law.
Click to expand...

its called a jail cell. I know you liberals and socialists think jail cells promote bad morale and only hurt that individuals self esteem, but stupid people do stupid things and making them pay the price when they've screwed up works a hell of a lot better than trying to take pre-emptive action which only causes people to find ways around the impediment.

It's stupid, costs money, and doesn't work.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
its called a jail cell. I know you liberals and socialists think jail cells promote bad morale and only hurt that individuals self esteem, but stupid people do stupid things and making them pay the price when they've screwed up works a hell of a lot better than trying to take pre-emptive action which only causes people to find ways around the impediment.

It's stupid, costs money, and doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Jail is a good answer. But the question is whether or not you want to support these people in jail. Putting someone in jail for a long time is a serious matter. Not only from what it costs financially, but what it costs in other ways.

And does putting someone in jail fix the problem? Are you sure they won't drive drunk when they get out?
 
Solitary said:
Jail is a good answer. But the question is whether or not you want to support these people in jail. Putting someone in jail for a long time is a serious matter. Not only from what it costs financially, but what it costs in other ways.

And does putting someone in jail fix the problem? Are you sure they won't drive drunk when they get out?
Click to expand...

it depends on how long their sorry ass has to sit there. I've known people who got 7 days, got out, went partying and driving that night. I've also known people that got 6 months, got out, and said 'ain't fucking doing it again'.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
its called a jail cell. I know you liberals and socialists think jail cells promote bad morale and only hurt that individuals self esteem, but stupid people do stupid things and making them pay the price when they've screwed up works a hell of a lot better than trying to take pre-emptive action which only causes people to find ways around the impediment.

It's stupid, costs money, and doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Alright, you propose your life sentences, I'll propose something that actually works without being grossly unjust.
 
STY is stupid.

I'm glad we're going in the alternative sentencing direction. We already have more people imprisoned than any society in history. It's done us no good.
 
Watermark said:
STY is stupid.

I'm glad we're going in the alternative sentencing direction. We already have more people imprisoned than any society in history. It's done us no good.
Click to expand...

I'm a fricking genius.

The 'alternative' sentencing you're asking for is the exact approach you're bitching about now, where we sentence simple pot use and possession to 20 years in prison and let drunk drivers who endanger lives, or even kill people in accidents, to 30 days. You're really a neocon, aren't you?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I'm a fricking genius.

The 'alternative' sentencing you're asking for is the exact approach you're bitching about now, where we sentence simple pot use and possession to 20 years in prison and let drunk drivers who endanger lives, or even kill people in accidents, to 30 days. You're really a neocon, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Alternative sentencing is a general catch all term for alternative to prison sentencing for minor offenders. I don't think alternative sentencing should be used for pot though; pot use shouldn't get any penalties at all.
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
its called a jail cell. I know you liberals and socialists think jail cells promote bad morale and only hurt that individuals self esteem, but stupid people do stupid things and making them pay the price when they've screwed up works a hell of a lot better than trying to take pre-emptive action which only causes people to find ways around the impediment.

It's stupid, costs money, and doesn't work.
Click to expand...

and how do you know it does not work before it is tried?
You a quitter defeatist?

Personally I think you should be allowed to shoot drunk drivers as a public service.

I thought it interesting that CO was one of the states though...
 
Watermark said:
Alternative sentencing is a general catch all term for alternative to prison sentencing for minor offenders. I don't think alternative sentencing should be used for pot though; pot use shouldn't get any penalties at all.
Click to expand...

If you are stoned to the bone and driving you should be treated lika any person driving under the influence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top