Time Magazine has decided to jump into the fray of alcohol-related fear mongering with a new article: Coming Soon: A Breathalyzer in Every Car?
As I’ve pointed out in a previous post, there have been some arguments over the nature of interlock systems- that is, systems placed in the car of convicted drunk drivers that require them to take a breathalyzer test to start the ignition. The idea is, as you can probably guess, that people who cannot judge for themselves if they should drive will have a machine judge for them, and thus we can feel safer on the road. But, of course, the ABI’s swinging, and this time I can’t support them: they claim this is a “trojan horse” trying to harm people’s right to “go to the ball game and happen to have a beer”. What?
Let me quickly overview the situation at hand, by summarizing the Time article and some other arguments that have been flying around: A huge number of reputable organizations (and even car manufacturers) back the idea of interlocks- as Americans are VERY commonly arrested for drunk driving, the idea is that not only would we be safe from repeat offenders, but the punishment would serve as a deterrent, keeping those who WOULD drive home from doing so lest they have a tube sticking out of their dashboard. Those who oppose it (mainly the ABI) claim… well, this:
[A] federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. “If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn’t be able drive home,” she says.
Wait, what?
First off, let’s make something clear: driving under the influence of alcohol is not, under any circumstances, appropriate. Indeed, the ABI may seem logical, but it has to be made very clear that this argument, though it may in some sort of idealistic Leave it to Beaver-esque world make sense, this does not translate into real world terms. “A beer” can translate into not only a hugely disparate number in terms of BAC, but it can also generally just be categorized as “drinking alcohol and driving”. Sure, it’s very unlikely that you’ll pop a .08 or higher drinking a single beer, but it’s nonetheless alcohol that can impair your normal functions.
The reason I bring this up is simple: the ABI, in a somewhat circuitous way, is essentially arguing to protect the right to break the law- or, at least, exacerbate its patience. In a kind of back-alley fratboy way, the ABI is trying to say it is “cool” to go and drink alcohol and drive so long as you’re “in control”- something we know as not only stupid, but plain out dangerous. Saying that there will be an interlock in every car is like saying that because of increased laws for spousal abuse everyone will be in jail: it presumes that every single person is stupid enough to break the law.
Still, even if there WAS a interlock in every car, should we care? Sure, it would be the most awkward and stupid way to start a car imaginable, but it really would not hurt the average American. What really hurts Americans are the huge number of drunk drivers on the road that kill people- to the tune of 15,000 people in 2007, 6496 already this year, according to the Death Clock. Seems like I’d rather blow into my car’s dash than have 15,000 people die per annum.
Tags: ABI, alcohol, consumer rights, interlocks, Politics
This is really a debate between people concerned about 1984 and those who believe good intentions are a just cause. 1984 Guy says this is another removal of our liberties. Even though drunk driving is illegal, it’s still -possible- and 1984 Guy finds comfort in that somehow. Good Intentions Guy says that we should not make crimes (and some would say dangerous activities) possible where it’s in our power, because, well, they’re life-threatening, illegal activities.
I’m a bit 1984 Guy, myself, but I try not to let that get in the way of seeing the other side. I thought Newsy’s coverage (at http://www.newsy.com/videos/liberty_and_breathalyzers_for_all) gave both sides a fair shake, reporting the news really as it is without leaning too far either way (or perhaps leaning a little both ways).