• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court kicks DWI case, sets new standard

The one's I've seen in action aren't that bad to use.

As far as costs, I believe people need to pay for their own safety.

To a degree. But once you start adding on unreasonable additions, requirements, and fines we've passed the point where "people need to pay for their own safety".
 
To a degree. But once you start adding on unreasonable additions, requirements, and fines we've passed the point where "people need to pay for their own safety".

If this were done, it would lead to decreased costs in court fees, incarceration and emergency services related to DUI. Teh money that would have been spent on these things could be redirected into covering teh cost of implementing this more effective strategy of deterrence.
 
If this were done, it would lead to decreased costs in court fees, incarceration and emergency services related to DUI. Teh money that would have been spent on these things could be redirected into covering teh cost of implementing this more effective strategy of deterrence.

They could, but they won't. That money will end up in the pocket of some politician. Listen, it's already this way. I don't understand why people insist on living in a fantasy world when it comes to government action and power. The government makes more money on a pack of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. Why? Taxes, taxes levied because they were going to "offset" the additional costs on the system caused by smokers. Did they? Hell ****ing no! They funded their own little pet projects. That's why we still sit here and talk about additional insurance costs for smokers when all that should have been taken care of.

There's no passing on the savings to us when the government is concerned. They will take our money, and any they saved, and spend it on anything they damned well please. So all you're doing in reality is endorsing projects which vastly overreach the granted power of the government and steal more money from us and will go to nothing to benefit us. Thanks but no thanks.
 
They could, but they won't. That money will end up in the pocket of some politician. Listen, it's already this way. I don't understand why people insist on living in a fantasy world when it comes to government action and power. The government makes more money on a pack of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. Why? Taxes, taxes levied because they were going to "offset" the additional costs on the system caused by smokers. Did they? Hell ****ing no! They funded their own little pet projects. That's why we still sit here and talk about additional insurance costs for smokers when all that should have been taken care of.

Not the same thing, so the argument above isn't applicable. Implementing the concept I'm suggesting will automatically reduce costs in other areas. There's no other situation that can occur. The presence of these systems automatically negates the possibility of the future costs of the things I mentioned.

The redirection of funds is automatic and instantaneous by the very nature of the implemented strategy.

There's no passing on the savings to us when the government is concerned. They will take our money, and any they saved, and spend it on anything they damned well please. So all you're doing in reality is endorsing projects which vastly overreach the granted power of the government and steal more money from us and will go to nothing to benefit us. Thanks but no thanks.

I said nothing about passing the savings on to anyone.
 
Not the same thing, so the argument above isn't applicable. Implementing the concept I'm suggesting will automatically reduce costs in other areas. There's no other situation that can occur. The presence of these systems automatically negates the possibility of the future costs of the things I mentioned.

The redirection of funds is automatic and instantaneous by the very nature of the implemented strategy.

Automatic and instantaneous...controlled by whom? No, you're robbing from me because you've perceived a problem and want everyone to please think of the children. Hey, when I drive there's a lot of things which can go wrong and hurt or even kill me. That's the plain ol' fact of the matter. There are reasonable restriction like driving tests to get a license, or speed limits, things like that. But once you start going overboard, requiring me to have expensive safety interlock systems; it's a whole different ball game. There is a line, and mandatory breathalyzer interlocks for everyone is over that line.
 
Automatic and instantaneous...controlled by whom? No, you're robbing from me because you've perceived a problem and want everyone to please think of the children. Hey, when I drive there's a lot of things which can go wrong and hurt or even kill me. That's the plain ol' fact of the matter. There are reasonable restriction like driving tests to get a license, or speed limits, things like that. But once you start going overboard, requiring me to have expensive safety interlock systems; it's a whole different ball game. There is a line, and mandatory breathalyzer interlocks for everyone is over that line.

What the hell are you talking about? how are you getting robbed by what I've described?

Seriously. At worst, there would be no change in the current state of what you would pay. Reread what I've written and remove your incorrect assumptions about what I'm saying. Like really read what was actually written instead.
 
Last edited:
What the hell are you talking about? how are you getting robbed by what I've described?

Seriously. At worst, there would be no change in the current state of what you would pay. Reread what I've written and remove your incorrect assumptions about what I'm saying. Like really read what was actually written instead.

I certainly see how he feels robbed...to have the inconvenience of a device in your car that stops you from driving until you breathe into it and wait for it to tell you it's ok to drive. That's ridiculous and it is robbing you of your freedom from unlawful search, siezure, and security in your property rights.
 
I certainly see how he feels robbed...to have the inconvenience of a device in your car that stops you from driving until you breathe into it and wait for it to tell you it's ok to drive. That's ridiculous and it is robbing you of your freedom from unlawful search, siezure, and security in your property rights.

There's no search or seizure. And how is your security threatened?

And is the fact that your car has to have turn signals and you are required by law to use them a violation of property rights?
 
What the hell are you talking about? how are you getting robbed by what I've described?

Seriously. At worst, there would be no change in the current state of what you would pay. Reread what I've written and remove your incorrect assumptions about what I'm saying. Like really read what was actually written instead.

No charge? My ass. I'll have to pay for the additional machine and the monthly fee associated with it. You'd accomplish this either through upfront additional costs to vehicles or through subsidies to the car manufactures which come from tax payer dollars.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.
 
There's no search or seizure. And how is your security threatened?

Yeah there is...your body is being searched every time you get into your car and blow into the damned thing. The security of your property rights is being threatened when your car, which functions normally any other time, is now stopped from functioning by this government mandated point of failure that decided to confuse your hot sauce from Taco Bell with vodka.

And is the fact that your car has to have turn signals and you are required by law to use them a violation of property rights?

Turn signals are built into the design of the car. They are not some extra thing that has to be purchased and placed on your property for the sole purpose of granting the government a little bit more functional control over your daily life.

Simply put, the turn signal is not there to tell you when you can and cannot operate your vehicle.
 
Yeah there is...your body is being searched every time you get into your car and blow into the damned thing. The security of your property rights is being threatened when your car, which functions normally any other time, is now stopped from functioning by this government mandated point of failure that decided to confuse your hot sauce from Taco Bell with vodka.
Confusing your hot sauce from Taco Bell with Vodka is an impossibility.
 
Confusing your hot sauce from Taco Bell with Vodka is an impossibility.

No, it is not. The interlock device has a margin of error that is caused by any number of issues. One of the most common being the mouthwash people use.
 
No, it is not. The interlock device has a margin of error that is caused by any number of issues. One of the most common being the mouthwash people use.

Vanilla shakes too. Drink one of those and blow right away and you will blow quite high. Now anything with like vanilla extract or mouthwash goes away in 10-15 min; but the point is the same. Also, these interlocks are easily defeated with a vacuum.
 
No, it is not. The interlock device has a margin of error that is caused by any number of issues. One of the most common being the mouthwash people use.

Because mouthwash people use contains ethyl Alcohol.

Does your Hot Sauce contain ethyl Alcohol?
 
Vanilla shakes too. Drink one of those and blow right away and you will blow quite high. Now anything with like vanilla extract or mouthwash goes away in 10-15 min; but the point is the same. Also, these interlocks are easily defeated with a vacuum.

What is Ethyl Alcohol doing in your Vanilla shake?
 
What is Ethyl Alcohol doing in your Vanilla shake?

It's in vanilla extract, it's used to separate the oil from the organic matter.
 
What is Ethyl Alcohol doing in your Vanilla shake?

Different flavorings may have some alcohol in them I thought. I know vanilla extract can be up to 20% alcohol or 40 proof.
 
Because mouthwash people use contains ethyl Alcohol.

Does your Hot Sauce contain ethyl Alcohol?

No but it often contains vinegar which can misread as an alcohol on paper tests and has been known to misread on interlocks. However, that wasn't my point...my point is that the interlock device gives false positives for a number of reasons. These are impediments on a person's right to travel freely and unmolested by his government. It's fine to temporarily revoke those rights with someone who has given cause to have them revoked as punishment but it is not something that should be a blanket policy for the general population never found guilty of such criminal activity.
 
No but it often contains vinegar which can misread as an alcohol on paper tests and has been known to misread on interlocks. However, that wasn't my point...my point is that the interlock device gives false positives for a number of reasons.

Indeed it does. Which is why the results of road side breathalyzer tests are not admissible in court. It can be used as probable cause to get a more exact reading, usually after some waiting period (in case it was something like mouthwash or something). But in and of itself, the gas chromatograph which is in the breathalyzers can false positive on a myriad of different substances.
 
Ooh, okay, I get it.
You folks are talking about residual mouth alcohol and are not being morons.

You wouldn't believe the amount of idiots who think that their use of mouthwash 7 hours ago can be a reason why they are blowing above the legal limit, and then there are those who think they can keep mouthwash in their car and cause problems with SFSTs, which is why officers commonly remove someone from their vehicle and do SFSTs before using a portable breath test.

In NC, a positive or negative result on a PBT can be testified to, but not the exact result. Also, in order to testify to such you have to ensure (even via asking, even if the person lies) how long it has been since they had a drink, and cannot ask them to blow unless its been at least 15 minutes. Which is why having them perform SFSTs (standardized field sobriety testing) before doing a PBT is good because that 15 minutes is usually up by that time.

Even though, as has been evidenced on more than one occasion in my training, residual alcohol eliminates from the mouth in a much shorter period of time than 15 minutes, its good to have a longer period of time for good measure, and such a time isn't unreasonably long.
 
Yeah there is...your body is being searched every time you get into your car and blow into the damned thing. The security of your property rights is being threatened when your car, which functions normally any other time, is now stopped from functioning by this government mandated point of failure that decided to confuse your hot sauce from Taco Bell with vodka.



Turn signals are built into the design of the car. They are not some extra thing that has to be purchased and placed on your property for the sole purpose of granting the government a little bit more functional control over your daily life.

Simply put, the turn signal is not there to tell you when you can and cannot operate your vehicle.

No charge? My ass. I'll have to pay for the additional machine and the monthly fee associated with it. You'd accomplish this either through upfront additional costs to vehicles or through subsidies to the car manufactures which come from tax payer dollars.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

I was mostly playing devil's advocate here, guys.

I've got nothing of value to give as a response to what you've both said in these and subsequent posts.

And the last few posts of mine in this thread were pretty weak, so I've decided to give up the attempt. :lol:
 
I was mostly playing devil's advocate here, guys.

I've got nothing of value to give as a response to what you've both said in these and subsequent posts.

And the last few posts of mine in this thread were pretty weak, so I've decided to give up the attempt. :lol:

I knew that. I was just happy it was someone other than me carrying that torch for once. :D
 
I usually do it better, but I have trouble even thinking of solid arguments for this one. :lol:

Never stopped me. I just get ridiculous with it and that usually causes a great gnashing of teeth in "them" whilst bringing a hearty chuckle to "us". :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom