It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big Brother To Decide If You Drive

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Sadly, I'm not surprised by the enthusiasm for authoritarian "solutions" in this thread.

Power over others is the most addictive and dangerous drug of all.




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
This is ridicules and it will not, better not pass. This law is not only impractical and perhaps impossible to fully implement but I also just don't like it.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Sadly, I'm not surprised by the enthusiasm for authoritarian "solutions" in this thread.

Power over others is the most addictive and dangerous drug of all.


Power over some asshole who wants to go out driving drunk, possibly killing innocent people? Yea, bring it on...if all these drunk drivers have the power to go out and murder people while intoxicated, then we should have the power to stop them. Anyone who isn't driving drunk shouldn't care about having a breathalyzer in the car...tracking devices are another matter entirely.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
That throws the presumption of innocence, a key part of our legal rights as citizens, out the window. When everyone is presumed to be guilty, and has to prove their innocence, every civil right in the book is effetively thrown out the window.

It's like saying everyone should submit to a daily body cavity search by the police, in order to prove they haven't got anything to hide. It's completely insane.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Let's look at a "hair is tinted blue, over-sized cataract shades" law. People over
the age of 70 need a DRIVER test, not just a perfunctory eye exam and "here
ya go, drive safe" test.
Those older people scare me.

Lex



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
It's like saying everyone should submit to a daily body cavity search by the police, in order to prove they haven't got anything to hide. It's completely insane.


While I don't agree with this law, at all, I don't think your example fits in this case. Driving is a privilege, not a right, one which you have to prove constantly (by following various laws and taking tests) that you can perform or else it's taken away from you. The breathalyzer in this case would just be another way of ensuring that those who drive are following the law and are capable of driving. So I do not agree with this proposal but I am not against mandatory breathalyzer tests at checkpoints and such.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
That throws the presumption of innocence, a key part of our legal rights as citizens, out the window. When everyone is presumed to be guilty, and has to prove their innocence, every civil right in the book is effetively thrown out the window.

It's like saying everyone should submit to a daily body cavity search by the police, in order to prove they haven't got anything to hide. It's completely insane.


Ok, well then I guess that using metal detectors in airports would be a violation as well...afterall, if we are all innocent, then we don't need to walk through a metal detector, leave our knives at home, and so on, right? If a dangerous person gets on an airplane, they have the capability to do serious damage, meaning murder. If a dangerous person gets behind the wheel of a car, they have the ability to do things just as bad, although not as severely...but how many people are killed each year by drunk drivers, and how many are killed by "terrorists" on airlines? A breathalyzer is no more of an inconvenience than a metal detector, and certainly just as necessary.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I am perfectly OK with breathalyzer tests when the police have reason to believe someone is DWI. This is different.

As far as the "driving is a privilege not a right" argument goes, then you're ok with randomly being stopped, and say, being forced to give a urine test to prove you're not on drugs I guess?

That's more like what we're talking about here.


[edit on 11/22/06 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
As far as the "driving is a privilege not a right" argument goes, then you're ok with randomly being stopped, and say, being forced to give a urine test to prove you're not on drugs I guess?


That's hardly the same thing, for one all this does is not allow
you to operate the vehicle while intoxicated, and seondly there's
no person doing the test.


You're being far to paranoid about this.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
May I ask any one who opposes any such action such as listed by the OP to please point out in bold red letters in a copied format of the US Constitution where in that document it states that we Americans are to be given the right to drive an automobile without infringement by government agencies.

Then may you point out in the US Constitution, Bill of Rights or any other federal document where it states that under no circumstances shall the government not infringe upon your natural rights as human being to use federally funded road ways, operate an automobile under inebriated influences of alcohol, drugs or any other impair-able substance.

Then will you please point out to me and all the readers of this sad thread where in the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other federal document where it says that the US Government will not or cannot and shall not infringe on the privacy of those who commit felonies while operating a potential weapon on government funded road ways, and how any surveillance of these felons would be in any way a dangerous act of aggression or infringement of our rights as citizens or human beings.

You will find that there is no basis for saying the government is wrong in tracking felons, especially a felon that drives a weapon, which is what a drunk driver is doing..

I question your own moral train of thought because well honestly.. I am allll for civil liberties but to stick up for drunk drivers so that it is harder for the police to get drunks off the roads.. Some things are worth sticking up for, the freedom of drunks to driver impaired.. is not one of those.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
As far as the "driving is a privilege not a right" argument goes, then you're ok with randomly being stopped, and say, being forced to give a urine test to prove you're not on drugs I guess?


Sorry but I think driving is a privilege, also, I do not think randomly stopping drivers to give them a breathalyzer test is illegal. When you drive you are automatically saying to law enforcement that you are capable of operating this vehicle and are not breaking any laws with respect to driving, or else you shouldn't be on the road. So if the police want to pull you over and give you a breathalyzer or ask for you license and proof of insurance, they should be allowed to. However I would only limit this to asking for documents and giving someone a breathalyzer, no drug test or car search unless there is further probable cause.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
It sounds like citizen-paying policing to me.
Except not through our tax system but through our own personal pockets.
What if my brother and I both share the same family car.
Does that mean because one member of my family has been an idiot, that we are all
tarred to the one brush? That ALL of us have to breathalised before going to the local
shops?
They want all our tax money and yet dont want to offer any actual "policing".

Maybe if the laws for drink driving were toughened up, then all this community responsibilty, quasi-policing wouldnt be necessary.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   


You're being far to paranoid about this.


You're not being nearly paranoid enough


Any form of authority will always seek to increase it's power, that's simply the nature of the beast. Laws against drunk driving are quite strict already, but increasing the power of law enforcement & increasing penalties exponentially still is not going to eliminate the problem - there's the law of diminishing returns to worry about.

Public safety arguments for any new police powers all seem reasonable at first - until you realize that the only way to create a state of perfect public safety is to have one cop for each citizen, monitoring their activities at all times - maybe two just to be totally safe


Noone here is sticking up for the right of drunks to drive impaired.
What we're sticking up for is the right of everyone else not to be constantly hassled by the police simply for driving down the street.

[edit on 11/22/06 by xmotex]


apc

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by xmotex
As far as the "driving is a privilege not a right" argument goes, then you're ok with randomly being stopped, and say, being forced to give a urine test to prove you're not on drugs I guess?

However I would only limit this to asking for documents and giving someone a breathalyzer, no drug test or car search unless there is further probable cause.



xmotex: They aren't your roads. They belong to the state. If you wish to use the states' roads, it's under the conditions it sets.

But probable cause is always needed to stop a person (or the desire to give them ice cream.....). To go further into their privacy and request that they prove their sobriety (either from alcohol or drugs), the LEO must be able to show that a reasonable person would suspect the subject were under the influence.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I have no problem with having devices for the control of drinking and driving for offenders.

I lost a very good friend, her baby daughter and older son to a drunk driver, her husband and middle boy were not in the car they survive to be left alone without a mother, wife and two siblings.

It was horrible.


But I am against any type of tracking device in any car for any reason, that is nothing more than an attempt to control drivers, for the benefit of insurances adjusters and government purposes.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Good for us. If people are going to refuse to take some civil responsibility with their habits, then society will just have to convince them we don't like their arrogant irresponsible thinking. Simple as that. I also take solace in Arkansas legsilators banning smoking in a car with children 6 years or 60 pounds or under. As if that shouldn't already be common sense. The only thing that matters to some people is their "fix", and we can all thank them for this kind of legislation being proposed, and hopefully passed, which really does not bother me at all.



Aside from the fact that this whole shananagan is ridiculous...

Why don't we start instilling actual values and principles in people, instead of relying on outside authority figures?

Instead of running beer commercials, run commercials that will teach people things, get them to think critically and analyze situations, instead of filling them with crap. (oh wait, that wouldn't be profitable.. riiiight...)


So, what is going to happen? Someone goes out drinking, can't drive home... now I have to deal with a ticked off drunk when I walk by the bar? Great, they're not out on the road, they're stalking around in the parking lot.. Fan-friggin'-tastic. Thanks MAAD.. I'll send them the bills.
Or, maybe they just start walking down the road in the middle of traffic...

Unless hotels are installed right next to bars, I don't see how this is going to actually work.

By getting a driver's license, you are agreeing to the rules of the road. If you cannot abide by them, then you get your license revoked. Simplicity at its finest.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I suppose it could the begining of something more but I dont think so. If it helps keep drunks off the roads, and out of the over burdened legal system I dont see what the big deal is? While it could be the tip of something bigger I dont think that's the case. I've heard of people having them installed themselves in high end exotics like Lambos, Ferraris etc.. to keep them from driving it.

I do have one question though. Whats to stop you from shooting some compressed air into it like the kind in a can to clean PCs? Or have someone else thats sober blow in it for you? Hey kid want to make $20 come blow in this tube for me



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Nothing in this plan involves being stopped by an officer, questioned, or being forced to give urine, or anything else. It is simply a small thing to do when you get in your car...breath into the machine, buckle up, and you are safe to drive. There's no hidden camera or "monitoring" device in the car.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc

xmotex: They aren't your roads. They belong to the state. If you wish to use the states' roads, it's under the conditions it sets.


And the state itself belongs to us, not the other way around.
Thus, they are my roads, they are your roads, they are everyone's roads.


But probable cause is always needed to stop a person (or the desire to give them ice cream.....). To go further into their privacy and request that they prove their sobriety (either from alcohol or drugs), the LEO must be able to show that a reasonable person would suspect the subject were under the influence.


Which is entirely reasonable, and all I expect.
Random stops on the other hand, are not acceptable.

And requiring every driver to blow into a tube to get their vehicle to start is simply absurd.

[edit on 11/22/06 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
Ok, well then I guess that using metal detectors in airports would be a violation as well...afterall, if we are all innocent, then we don't need to walk through a metal detector, leave our knives at home, and so on, right? If a dangerous person gets on an airplane, they have the capability to do serious damage, meaning murder. If a dangerous person gets behind the wheel of a car, they have the ability to do things just as bad, although not as severely...but how many people are killed each year by drunk drivers, and how many are killed by "terrorists" on airlines? A breathalyzer is no more of an inconvenience than a metal detector, and certainly just as necessary.



Dude, if I *really* wanted to kill someone on an airplane, I've got all the tools necessary. I'm given plastic-ware to eat with.. that's more than ample. Nevermind the headphones with nice long cords, or my pen/cil....

Seriously. How far do we go in this idea of 'safety'??

Plastic wrap the curbs?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join