This one is actually extremely easy. The liberty that is being surrendered is the presumption of innocence. When you drive today you are presumed to not be committing a crime and are able to drive until you exhibit probable cause that you have or are committing a crime.

When you add in an interlock into every car regardless of if the driver has been convicted of a DUI you change the presumption of guilt. You are now assumed to be committing a crime every time you start your car. Only when you can prove that you are not committing a crime are you allowed to drive. If you refuse to blow the car will not start because the system assumes you are drunk UNTIL you can prove that you are not.

It may not sound like a significant change but it is HUGE.

As they say in life the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The intent is noble, but the price is enormous.

Thank you. You said it like I did sorta a dozen times. I guess you are better at this than I am. I thought I made that point clear but I guess i fugged it up.

There is no way to measure.


Maybe this technology shouldn't be across the board./Tod Haley


PhilFree:arrow:

Who said I agreed with it in principle? His argument was lousy. It wasn't just because he was arguing against a non-existent equation.

DUI does not cause you to swerve over the center line and hit an oncoming car head on. There are DUI situations that don't end in a crossed yellow line and head on collision, and there are sober drivers who do cross the line and hit oncoming traffic.

DUI does not cause you to slam into the back of a parked car. There are DUI situations that don't end with slamming into a parked car, and there are sober drivers who do hit parked cars.

Dues

Who's arguement is a lousy one? My arguement is about the constitutional presumption of innocence and the ability of asshats to circumvent laws while law abiding citizens suffer the constitutional violation of rights and pay taxes to yet another innefective government overlord...

Fat Elvis'

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...6&postcount=27

OK we's cool....

Just make drunk driving a felony punishable by death to be carried out no later then 24 hours after sentencing. :D

I been sittin here
Thinkin
and Drinkin


Thank god I'm at home and don't have to call a Limo!



PhilFree:arrow:
~does not drink and drive~

Or until you need to take your neighbors car and it won't start cause you are not calibrated for it.

Or the wonderful rolling test were you have to blow when driving, yea that's F'ing safe

LMAO :thumb:

That argument doesn't work. With this "solution" you have an even greater presumption of innocence, since... you know.... the car is moving. Sure, someone else could have blown into it for you, but if its a borderline drunk/not drunk case the fact that the car started is a point in your favor.

A better argument is simple cost. Money, thats it. Making everyone pay extra because of the misdeeds of a few is arguably not worth it. We shouldn't try to save human lives at all costs, at some point the cost isn't worth it.

I would just eliminate alcohol from the face of the earth period.

No, his arguement is exacty correct and do not try to corrupt it. Its about our constitution and the whole point of it. Does everyone here even understand that the constitution was intended to wrap in chains and constrict our federal government against us? Does eveyone understand when we cede our sovereign rights as individuals in this republic, we weaken it?

sad. really sad.

please dc this thing...it is about to get very very ugly...

What if a group of friends are shooting fireworks on the side of a mountain but one of the displays simulates a rainbow and then everybody is like - oh, what is the meaning of this... and then a shot misfires and discharges hundreds of fireworks on the ground injuring dozens of friends and really the only person without his legs blown off is Whiskey Jack. Plus the school bus you drove up there is a stick shift. What then?