From: Fred Bloggs
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Subject: Re: Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks - Big Brother at his best!
References: <3E16A0FA.F0D9DFBE@sympatico.ca> <5jwR9.94251$hK4.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:35:22 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:35:22 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Michael Painter" wrote in
>>"Gerry Schneider" wrote in message
>>>There you go - a (flawed!) device whose "data" (including
>>>false positives) is used to judge you without recourse to a
>>>fair hearing, which *requires* you to either blow into a
>>>tube while driving (ridiculous!) or pull over before the
>>>horn and lights go off (dangerous!), and which is set to
>>>absurdly low levels (watch out for mouthwash and
>>>liqueur-filled chocolates!). And when does the punishment
>>>end? When they say so! OK, sure, the guy may have deserved
>>>to get nailed for drunk driving, but doesn't anybody besides
>>>me (and Fred) worry about where this is going? Or have you
>>>Americans been so brainwashed by the War on Drugs, War on
>>>Terrorism etc. that you don't care anymore?
>>Hopefully it is going to reduce the number of drinking and drunk
>>drivers on the road. Maybe you are part of the culture that thinks
>>it's OK. Until very recent times in the USA, drinking and driving was
>>not taken seriously. A wink and "haven't you ever had a few and drove
>>home" got millions off.
>>I have been on three accidents in the last year that may not have
>>involved drinking. One for sure, the other two, the people were gone
>>before we got there.
>>Ever watch a kid die because his drinking dad put him on the tank of a
>>motorcycle and broke a telephone pole with it.
>>Dad lived because the kid served as an air bag.
>>I'd have a lot less to do if there was no drinking and driving.
>>I don't care what they do. You drive with the consent of the
>>government and it is not a right.
> So,one should give up Constitutionally protected rights,such as 4th
> Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure,personal
> privacy,like one does for DUI roadblocks?
> "Then right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,and
> effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures,Shall not be
> violated,and no warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause,supported by
> oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to be
> searched,and the persons or things to be seized."
> It should not matter what mode of travel one uses.If drug checkpoints are
> unconstitutional,as was recently ruled by the USSC,then DUI roadblocks are
> just as unconstitutional.
You called it. First prohibition and then you will have more high-tech
gun control. You are ineligible for a concealed weapon permit in many
jurisdictions when convicted of a DUI.