New Mexico mulls drunk driving locks on all cars

[GRClarkesq]

SANTA FE, N.M., Feb 17 (Reuters) - New Mexico is considering a law that would make all drivers exhale into an alcohol detection device in their cars before they could start the engine.

The New Mexico House of Representatives on Monday passed a bill to require an ignition lock that will prevent a car from starting if the driver fails a breath test. The bill is being debated this week in the state's Senate.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17385751.htm

[lazarus]

1. err

I'm thinking this is both illegal in financially undoable.

[XNASA]

3. Illegal to be sure.

I rather see other measures taken to prevent drunk driving than breathing into an apparatus that may or may not be functioning properly.

[enki23]

15. not illegal. unwieldy, no doubt

but driving has never been held to be a right. if they can get it through the legislature, i doubt the courts would (or credibly could) do anything about it.

[saigon68]

30. The legislature is Not NEEDED there

From the sound of this they are not needed--- they apparently have nothing to do ---but come up with this mischief.

They could count the hairs on the back of a caterpillar instead.

[joedem]

31. Ignorance at work...

I love it when people act like experts on subjects with minimal or no information whatsoever.

The legislature has nothing to do? This issue isn't important?

Well, first off...I think DWI is important in ANY state, because it costs lives in every state. But it's particularly important in a state like New Mexico, which has the highest rate of DWI-related accidents and casualties in the nation. Not to mention the cost to New Mexico families. And I think would just be a bit callous to begin to speculate on all the related costs to the state and taxpayers. Maybe you can disagree with the method the legislature has chosen, but to claim that it's unimportant is just silly. Perhaps you think it's silly to at least consider gun control measures in a state or city with a high incidence rate of gun violence? Hey, people are shooting children, but lets go count caterpillars!

And as for the cost...obviously no one that commented on that bothered to look into the facts. The same senator that introduced the measure also introduced a bill that would offset the cost of the devices by providing a tax break on the state car tax. So the cost would be the same.

Personally I think it's a worthwhile measure. But what bugs me is that know-it-alls who really know nothing about the state or the issue are so smug in their opinions.

[duhneece]

35. Welcome to Du and thank you for your thoughtful response

As a (?fellow?) New Mexican, I recognize our state's high DWI auto fatality rate and realize this is a creative (potential) solution.

[DavidMS]

36. Even if DUI is a problem...

I would not go about it that way. The first question is weather drunk driving is a habitual crime (the average durnk driver has been arested several times vs. 1 time). If its a habitual crime, a cort ordered breathalizer woudl be a good thing. No need to make every car more expensive...

Also just to be mean, forcing them to sell their existing vehicle and buying a KIA or Daewoo subcompact (cheap, lightweight and with poor crash safty) would also be effective in keaping risks to other drivers down.

[smb]

48. Magic Money From Nowhere?

The same senator that introduced the measure also introduced a bill that would offset the cost of the devices by providing a tax break on the state car tax.

OK, which other taxes are going to go UP, or which other spending is going to be CUT, to compensate?

[LiberalFighter]

62. Meaning... who pays?

The car owner or the taxpayer? :bounce:

The math would be the same overall.

NOW... if it is required for those that are habitual drunks? That is a different story. AND the owner of that vehicle is assess the cost of the device.

BUT... a habitual drunk can borrow another person's vehicle to avoid the device. IF the owner of that vehicle permitted that person to drive then they should be fined substantially.

[DoNotRefill]

55. Heh....a tax rebate doesn't mean it's cost-free....

it means that the State will raise some other tax in some other area to regain the revenue.

Frankly, the whole idea reeks of Big Brother to me. It's also treating EVERYBODY as if they are criminals. If a person has been adjudicated to be a drunk driver, I have little problem with mandating a device for that person's car, provided it conforms with the 5th Amendment. To mandate such devices for everybody's car, however, is outrageous.

As for your gun control analogy, pick a city with a high crime rate, and then compare it to a city with a low crime rate. Odds are better than excellent that the place with the high crime rate has very strict gun control, while the place with the low crime rate has much less gun control. Obviously, a high level of gun control does squat to lower the crime rate....

[LiberalFighter]

61. How many of those legislators will get re-elected?

That is the key!!

[waylon]

2. No way you could get around that little feature

Impossible!

[XNASA]

4. Someone else could breath into it for you?

Or, you could be wacked out of your mind on Oxy and the device would never know?

Or, someone will market a product that contains "fresh breath"?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

19. "Or, you could be wacked out of your mind on Oxy

and the device would never know?"

Are thinking of anyone in particular? I know I am.

[LiberalFighter]

63. Have a tank of oxygen stored in the car.

Would helium work too?

[hlthe2b]

5. I'm assuming you are being sarcastic? Wouldn't you simply have to

talk someone on the street who had not been drinking to come over and start it for you?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. The way I read it it oozes with sarcasm.

[waylon]

28. Yes, sarcasm intended....

I was thinking more of a technological solution but a substitute blower would work just as well.

What will they think of next?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

29. How about an illiterate "president"?.....

Never mind, that's already out there.

[Elidor]

38. A substitute blower...

I can see it now: some drunk old guy calling to his buddy, "Hey, Ralph, can ya come blow me off? I can't get started."
:evilgrin:

[DoNotRefill]

56. Why not just take 10 minutes to rewire the damned thing?

or else simply pull the appropriate fuse from the fuse panel...

[beyurslf]

6. Why every car? I would agree for those who have a DUI

offense and certainly for those with multiple offenses. I have some good friends in ABQ and they say drunk driving is a huge problem there. Their school superintendant was killed in a drunk driving wreck in the middle of the day. He and the other passengers in the car were all drunk.

[Jack from Charlotte]

7. Being the entrepreneurial guy that I am

I think I'll produce and sell "Canned Breath." It'll have all the chemical odors most people's breath has.... garlic, Big-macs, etc... but is guaranteed to foil the New Mexico breath/car start device

So even if you're caca-faced you can have your George Bush DUI or even a Dick Chennyesque 2-Dui's, if you want.

[trogdor]

16. Just blow into a balloon before drinking.

Then release the air into the device afterward.

[Jack from Charlotte]

26. Yes but, the device might defeat your scheme.........

of using a balloon to store your un-alcoholic breath.... I'm guessing (or hopeing) the device will recognize "balloon breath" and reject it. Canned-breath is where it's at, I say.

[Mandate My Ass]

8. Not only guilty until proven innocent

but $1,000 lighter in the wallet to regain the presumption of innocence. I'd like to see who introduced this legislation and who his/her campaign donors are.

I do believe prevention is key, but this is not the way to go.

[Exultant Democracy]

9. Well given that anyone who really wanted to drive could get around it

There are probably a lot of people that would blow, see what there BAC was and then decide to call a cab.

How many lives does it have to save before it is considered financially feasible.

[BiggJawn]

10. Who's gonna pay to have it put on MY car?

Not me. I don't drink.
I'd refuse to pay for it.

[anarchy1999]

32. It will become standard as in air bags.

Fun, Fun, Fun.

First you blow, then you get to turn the key. (If you pass, if you don't, then you get to sleep it off in your car until you can blow and pass.)

No more Martini's or beer for lunch. No more mornings on the golf course with a Bloody Mary or two.

You may only drink responsibly at home from this date forward.

GOTCHA!

[joedem]

33. Actually...

The devices are supposed to be calibrated to the legal limit...which I believe is .1 in New Mexico. Granted, there will probably be some failures, but it's not like you could go and have a beer at lunch and then not be able to drive. MADD actually won't endorse the measure because they say it's too lenient...

[DoNotRefill]

57. Don't get me started about MADD...The road to Hell is paved....

with good intentions. MADD has done more damage to the 4th Amendment than any other group or person out there, INCLUDING Ashcroft.

[yellowcanine]

11. Yeah guys - I'm sure that would pass Constitutional muster

This sounds like something John Ashcroft might come up with....
It takes a court order to put one of these devices on a car - and then I believe it is usually done as part of a plea agreement to keep the perp's ass out of prison - the one sure way of making certain someone will not drive drunk.

These devices cost big bucks - so we are going to make people who never drink and drive - or maybe never even drink- pay for this on their car? I don't think so. Also, these devices are not foolproof - some foods, drinks, mouthwashes, etc - could give a false positive.

[joeunderdog]

25. How 'bout an IQ test on the door of the White House? n/t

[GRClarkesq]

12. Government run amok

Surely the NM legislature has some other issues to address. Failing that, just go home.

[ConcernedCanuk]

13. aw heck - just fill up a balloon of your breath BEFORE you go drinking

.
.
.

ah,

but then they'd make it illegal to have inflated balloons in your car !

can't win

just can't win

[BiggJawn]

14. Man, the moron who sponsored this travesty is one of "us"...

Ken Martinez is a Democrat. He says, "People called seat belts and air bags inconvenient at first but it's just an issue of getting used to it. I think in the long run it will save money and lives,"

Hey, i got a better idea. Why not just bar motor vehicle usage/ownership in the state of New Mexico?

Sure, it's be "inconvienient at first", but think of the lives you'd save. Think of all them Land of Enchanters getting healthy from having to walk or pedal everywhere. Think of the OIL saved!

I wonder how much $$$ Martinez gets from MADD?

Why am I upset over this?
Does "innocent until proven guilty" and "Probable Cause" ring any bells? Why not have every resident wear an ankle bracelet like probationers do, so The State can keep track of their whereabouts in case they're doing something naughty?

What's next? a "K-Y Jelly Registry" because somebody gets the idea that lube is used for anal sex and masturbation?

[smb]

49. Yep

Man, the moron who sponsored this travesty is one of "us"...

Yep, and the FReakazoids are having a field day with that. :-(

[gate of the sun]

17. Well I guess I'll be moving to New YOrk

which I'm thinking about anyway.....this is so ridiculous....New Mexico has been so lenient on drunk drivers and now they are going to swing the other way I see. This kind of legislation I can do without.

[Robb]

23. Yeah, I mean back me up on this:

New Mexico still has drive-thru liquor stores, right? :D

Full disclosure: so does Colorado.

[gate of the sun]

27. I'm not sure about the drive-thru

but when I moved here three years ago people had like 34 drunk driving arrests and were still driving. A resonable drunk driving law is all this place needs....not some crazy breathalizer in all cars! It's just plain crazy.

[enki23]

18. this is far from the only ridiculous attempt at legislation

and it's not even that bad, really. a little silly, maybe. it wouldn't really even be all that expensive. less expensive than, say, california emissions requirements. and it wouldn't be "unconstitutional" as driving has never been considered a right by the courts, to my knowledge at least. you can lose your driving privileges for any of a huge number of reasons. you can have your driving restricted as a matter of policy as well. this isn't a civil rights issue; it doesn't discriminate against any particular class of people. it's just a legislative proposal which will go nowhere.

[lebkuchen]

21. That state is scary to drive in.

An 32 y.o. acquaintance of mine was hit by a drunk driver there, and she will forever walk with a limp.

[anarchy1999]

22. A friend of mine had such a device in her car,

I predicted then (1998) that it would come to this. I am so not surprised. Only surprised it was not proposed in Texas first.
Amazing, just amazing. What's next?

Can we just go ahead with the chip in the arm or forehead now? You know, let's just get complete and total control over with. You in or are you out. "You are either with us or against us". It is really all just about making us all be safer don't you know.

Surreal.

1984, Orwell

"Something's happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
Stop now
What's that sound
Everybody look what's going down."

I think we are.

[Romulus]

24. great idea

If people clamor for "smart guns," then people should clamor for this nifty idea - "smart cars."

Remember, if it saves just one life, it's worth it.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

edited to add: smart guns & smart cars are the same principle - if you're authorized to use the device, you have nothing to fear.

[BiggJawn]

40. "nothing to fear"

Kee-Ryst, WHERE have I heard THAT one before?
S'Yeah, just like a "routine" traffic stop....

"Four legs GOOD! Two Legs BAD! Baaaaaaaaa!"

Only sheep who pine for the "Nanny State" would see this as a good idea.

So NM lets people who have multiple DUI's keep driving, and they think the way to combat that is to penalize everyone.
Makes about as much sense as fighting rape by castrating all newborns.

[smb]

50. Watch What You Say....

Makes about as much sense as fighting rape by castrating all newborns.

Don't give them any ideas. They might try to enact them when the rape rate in NM starts spiking (because a 30-second delay on starting a car will be a great tactical advantage for the pervert lurking in the parking garage).

[kskiska]

34. Just have your dog breathe into it.

.

[Sacajawea]

44. Thanks, kskiska! You made me laugh out loud!!!

:7 :7 :7

[MacCovern]

37. Will using listerine stop people from driving?

If so, I may never go to New Mexico. Who wants to be an a state
full of people with stinky breath because they are too afraid to use
mouth wash?

Also, don't these devices need to be calibrated frequently or they
might give false positive readings?

I am all for common sense DUI laws, my father had his legs crushed by
a drunk driver and was hospitalized for several months, but this legislation in New Mexico is absurd!

[BayCityProgressive]

39. Well

something does need to be done about drunk driving. At first read I thought this could be a good idea, and I don't think it violates rights. Driving is not a right. However, I think it could cost a lot of money and would be wasteful. People could easily get around this by having someone else blow in it, and I am sure poeple will figure out how to rig it or get around it. So all this money would be wasted for nothing. This is where people get the term "tax and spend liberal" some liberals just think the government can do everything. and I AM VERY LIBERAL. Just take licenses from drunk drivers. You cannot prevent everything. Perhaps bars could give breathalizers to peole who they think drank too much? I know none of this is full proof but I doubt anything would be.

[Tiberius]

54. "rights" vs. "privileges"

Boy am I tired of the whole "driving is a privilege, not a right" argument. Couldn't the same thing be said for, say, walking on public sidewalks?

[DoNotRefill]

58. Driving isn't a right, but...

being free from unreasonable searches and seizures IS a right, which this idea clearly tramples on. Your Constitutional rights don't end just because you are sitting in a car, people...

[SinkingInTheRain]

41. What repub is running that state?

How can the Dems in NM allow a repub to make such a stupid rule?

[demdave]

59. You mean the stupid Dem rule???

Ken Martinez, a Democratic representative who sponsored the bill.

[nayt]

42. sigh

not only is it going to increase the cost of a new vehicle, but people are probably going to have to pay an inordinate amount of money to fix the stupid thing when it breaks. very regressive.

[0rganism]

43. It might make sense to temporarily have the device in a DUI convict's car

as a condition for retaining one's license to drive.

Otherwise, this is just an expensive slam at humanity in general.

[JusticeForAll]

45. I wonder how many Dems were against seat belts

when the idea of making them mandatory was first introduced?

[NMLobo]

46. Soooooo

Drive ups were outlawed about 3-4 years ago, BUT around the same time we were allowed to buy liquor on Sundays and holidays. The gobernador at the time was Gary Johnson, Republican/part time Libertarian.

Current GOv is a Dem, Bill Richardson, former congressman and energy secretary under Clinton.

I think this is all grandstanding and don't even know where the Gov stands on it. FWIW I'm calling the Auto dealers assoc and telling them if this passes I'm going to Colorado, ARizona Utah or wherever to buy my next car(s).

Hey maybe we could just outlaw liquor sales. Yeah that'll work!!!!

[smb]

47. This Bill May Be Referenced As...

...the Victim Immobilization and Rapist Assistance Act of 2004.

Martinez should be run out of the state on a rail.

[Spentastic]

52. removed by poster

[NashVegas]

51. We Can Force Manufacturers to Put in Breathalizers, But Not 35 MPG?

Buuuuuuullshit!

[RoadRunner]

53. This is a very, very bad idea.

Drunk driving is a major problem in New Mexico that must be dealt with. This bill, however, is flawed to the core.

It places a huge financial penalty of as much as $1,000 (some say much more) on everyone buying a new car, most of whom don't drink while they drive. Punishing the innocent while the guilty get off free is always a bad idea. Far better would be to require the device on the car of anyone with a prior DWI or just take their damned drivers license away from them.

[demdave]

60. This is not just about new cars, used cars also fall under it's rule.

That means as a private owner you would have to convert your car before you could sell it. This would effectively eliminate any resale of older or inexpensive cars. Tell me how that isn't costing the lower income among us to lose an asset.

[rawtribe]

64. what next?

How about a pee test?
Maybe a blood test.
Don't forget to test ones reflexes, don't want any sleepy drivers.
How about filing a driving plan with the police before you can take your car for a spin.


==================
"All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should."
  —Samuel Adams