TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

---

And we get another step closer to throwing the constitution in the trash.
We can debate the issue of drinking and driving (it's bad and you shouldn't do it), but putting breathalyzers in a vehicle as a pretext to starting your car is an illegal search.

---

I respectfully disagree.

You are not being searched. Your car simply won't start if you are drunk and trying to drive. You won't be charged with a crime and you can just call an Uber, which you should have done to begin with.

To get on an airplane, you are searched because you may pose a public threat. Nobody cares about that or throws up 4th Amendment challenges at the TSA -- and that is way more intrusive than ensuring drunk drivers can't drive on public roads.

This legislation will save lives, court, law enforcement, and prison costs. It will also make us safer.

---

If you are required to submit a sample of your breath to start your car as mandated by Congress, that's a search. And all searches by the government require probable cause.

CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This will never survive a fourth amendment challenge, it's much ado about nothing.

---

So exactly how did the right for public and private institutions to enact mandatory employee drug testing programs survive that challenge?

If you want to have a job where you operate machinery (or really any job, for that matter), you can be subject to a drug screening. Completely within the confines of the 4th Amendment. Not sure how this would be any different.

How is a safety measure that will keep people from destroying or ending their lives or the lives of others bad legislation?

Is it your "freedom"?

OK, so let's get rid of stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, seatbelt/helmet laws, and see what happens.

Laws by definition limit freedom. All of a sudden, any proposed legislation, no matter how reasonable, is an infringement upon everyone's "freedom".

Don't get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and it won't be a problem. It will save lives.

---

That's a very dump comparison. One is a private company and the other is the government.

As far as saving lives, don't drive and you'll be safe. It's your choice!

---

According to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution, both private and public employees are subject to mandatory drug testing.

Quote:

---

As far as saving lives, don't drive and you'll be safe. It's your choice!

---

Indeed. By I abide by laws.

In order to operate a vehicle, you must do at the very least, the following:

• Be old enough (16 in most states)
• Ascertain a driver's license
• Pass a safety test and/or driving test
• Renew your license on a regular basis to ensure you are competent to operate a vehicle
• Register your vehicle with the state government
• Have your vehicle inspected annually to ensure it is safe for the road
• Maintain financial responsibility for any liability you may cause to others
• Abide by the state, federal, and local traffic laws
• Not operate a vehicle while intoxicated

Here's what they are trying to add:

• Using technology to ensure that you don't operate a car while intoxicated

Oh, no, my "freedoms"!

You are advocating for your right to break a law that kills over 10,000 people a year. For "freedom".

TxAgswin said:

---

CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This will never survive a fourth amendment challenge, it's much ado about nothing.

---

So exactly how did the right for public and private institutions to enact mandatory employee drug testing programs survive that challenge?

If you want to have a job where you operate machinery (or really any job, for that matter), you can be subject to a drug screening. Completely within the confines of the 4th Amendment. Not sure how this would be any different.

How is a safety measure that will keep people from destroying or ending their lives or the lives of others bad legislation?

Is it your "freedom"?

OK, so let's get rid of stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, seatbelt/helmet laws, and see what happens.

Laws by definition limit freedom. All of a sudden, any proposed legislation, no matter how reasonable, is an infringement upon everyone's "freedom".

Don't get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and it won't be a problem. It will save lives.

---

That's a very dump comparison. One is a private company and the other is the government.

As far as saving lives, don't drive and you'll be safe. It's your choice!

---

According to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution, both private and public employees are subject to mandatory drug testing.

Quote:

---

As far as saving lives, don't drive and you'll be safe. It's your choice!

---

Indeed. By I abide by laws.

In order to operate a vehicle, you must do at the very least, the following:

• Be old enough (16 in most states)
• Ascertain a driver's license
• Pass a safety test and/or driving test
• Renew your license on a regular basis to ensure you are competent to operate a vehicle
• Register your vehicle with the state government
• Have your vehicle inspected annually to ensure it is safe for the road
• Maintain financial responsibility for any liability you may cause to others
• Abide by the state, federal, and local traffic laws
• Not operate a vehicle while intoxicated

Here's what they are trying to add:

• Using technology to ensure that you don't operate a car while intoxicated

Oh, no, my "freedoms"!

You are advocating for your right to break a law that kills over 10,000 people a year. For "freedom".

---

The bold is a strawman.

As far as government employees, they are being treated as employees while on the job, not as citizens of the state. That's a completely different scenario! The government has no right to require an employee of the state to take a sobriety test each time they get into their car to drive to work. But once they are on the job, they have the right to ensure a safe work place.

You really think that's what this is about? If so that addresses the problem with people right now.

These politicians do NOT care about society or keeping drunk drivers off the road. If they did, then they would create something that disabled texting while driving or other items. Distracted driving is rapidly increasing but it isn't important enough because it's not emotional.

This is invasive and a way to generate money. We are going to have to pay for these, the maintenance, the registration, the upkeep. Privacy will be impacted (testing results stored and likely used in some manner to grab more money from citizens).

Do not confuse this with me implying people should drink and drive, they shouldn't. As you said, take an Uber, no reason not to these days honestly.

In typical fashion people get warm fuzzies believing it's a kind act, but it has no real good intentions other than a way to tax or punish the majority of people not breaking the law to capture the small percentage doing so.

TxAgswin said:

---

CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This will never survive a fourth amendment challenge, it's much ado about nothing.

---

So exactly how did the right for public and private institutions to enact mandatory employee drug testing programs survive that challenge?

If you want to have a job where you operate machinery (or really any job, for that matter), you can be subject to a drug screening. Completely within the confines of the 4th Amendment. Not sure how this would be any different.

How is a safety measure that will keep people from destroying or ending their lives or the lives of others bad legislation?

Is it your "freedom"?

OK, so let's get rid of stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, seatbelt/helmet laws, and see what happens.

Laws by definition limit freedom. All of a sudden, any proposed legislation, no matter how reasonable, is an infringement upon everyone's "freedom".

Don't get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and it won't be a problem. It will save lives.

---

That's a very dump comparison. One is a private company and the other is the government.

As far as saving lives, don't drive and you'll be safe. It's your choice!

---

According to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution, both private and public employees are subject to mandatory drug testing.

Quote:

---

As far as saving lives, don't drive and you'll be safe. It's your choice!

---

Indeed. By I abide by laws.

In order to operate a vehicle, you must do at the very least, the following:

• Be old enough (16 in most states)
• Ascertain a driver's license
• Pass a safety test and/or driving test
• Renew your license on a regular basis to ensure you are competent to operate a vehicle
• Register your vehicle with the state government
• Have your vehicle inspected annually to ensure it is safe for the road
• Maintain financial responsibility for any liability you may cause to others
• Abide by the state, federal, and local traffic laws
• Not operate a vehicle while intoxicated

Here's what they are trying to add:

• Using technology to ensure that you don't operate a car while intoxicated

Oh, no, my "freedoms"!

You are advocating for your right to break a law that kills over 10,000 people a year. For "freedom".

---

There is no evidence that this law will save any lives. It's being used to tax and destroy the middle class and bankrupt car and oil companies by making cars unaffordable for the majority of Americans. It also requires cars to use even more chips which we are currently short on, which will increase the price of everything.

Let me guess, you also think the government spending another 3 trillion dollars will lower inflation. You are promoting authoritarians and embarrassing yourself.

Quote:

---

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

- Benjamin Franklin

---

Would you be in favor of a law that requires cameras in homes to prevent child abuse since it would save lives and prevent much harm to children?

HTownAg98 said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

---

And we get another step closer to throwing the constitution in the trash.
We can debate the issue of drinking and driving (it's bad and you shouldn't do it), but putting breathalyzers in a vehicle as a pretext to starting your car is an illegal search.

---

I respectfully disagree.

You are not being searched. Your car simply won't start if you are drunk and trying to drive. You won't be charged with a crime and you can just call an Uber, which you should have done to begin with.

To get on an airplane, you are searched because you may pose a public threat. Nobody cares about that or throws up 4th Amendment challenges at the TSA -- and that is way more intrusive than ensuring drunk drivers can't drive on public roads.

This legislation will save lives, court, law enforcement, and prison costs. It will also make us safer.

---

If you are required to submit a sample of your breath to start your car as mandated by Congress, that's a search. And all searches by the government require probable cause.

---

I would agree with you if the data was shared with law enforcement.

But it won't be. The car just won't start and that's it. It's a safety feature, not an assault on freedom. Far from it.

Define impaired.

.08? What about weed, Xanax, anti-depressants, etc? 50% of people in the us are on mood altering drugs that can impair motor control. What if I'm still a better driver at .1 BAC than someone with a BAC of .01? Why should the person that is driving better be in more danger of going to jail than the person putting more people's lives at risk by just being a shifty driver in general?

I see a bunch of women being stranded with men they would have preferred to get away from because of this law.

Damn it… missed it up top

IslanderAg04 said:

---

All this bull**** for community college and pre k. What a joke.

---

That's in a separate bill. And it was cut.

TxAgswin said:

---

CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

This will never survive a fourth amendment challenge, it's much ado about nothing.

---

So exactly how did the right for public and private institutions to enact mandatory employee drug testing programs survive that challenge?

If you want to have a job where you operate machinery (or really any job, for that matter), you can be subject to a drug screening. Completely within the confines of the 4th Amendment. Not sure how this would be any different.

How is a safety measure that will keep people from destroying or ending their lives or the lives of others bad legislation?

Is it your "freedom"?

OK, so let's get rid of stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, seatbelt/helmet laws, and see what happens.

Laws by definition limit freedom. All of a sudden, any proposed legislation, no matter how reasonable, is an infringement upon everyone's "freedom".

Don't get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and it won't be a problem. It will save lives.

---

That's a very dump comparison. One is a private company and the other is the government.

As far as saving lives, don't drive and you'll be safe. It's your choice!

---

According to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution, both private and public employees are subject to mandatory drug testing.

Quote:

---

As far as saving lives, don't drive and you'll be safe. It's your choice!

---

Indeed. By I abide by laws.

In order to operate a vehicle, you must do at the very least, the following:

• Be old enough (16 in most states)
• Ascertain a driver's license
• Pass a safety test and/or driving test
• Renew your license on a regular basis to ensure you are competent to operate a vehicle
• Register your vehicle with the state government
• Have your vehicle inspected annually to ensure it is safe for the road
• Maintain financial responsibility for any liability you may cause to others
• Abide by the state, federal, and local traffic laws
• Not operate a vehicle while intoxicated

Here's what they are trying to add:

• Using technology to ensure that you don't operate a car while intoxicated

Oh, no, my "freedoms"!

You are advocating for your right to break a law that kills over 10,000 people a year. For "freedom".

---

Quit voting to take my freedoms away due to others lack of personal responsibility. It's already against the law to drive drunk.

Allowing laws like this only creates more governance in our lives. Should we lower the speed limits to 40 mph on the highways? That would save lives. Probably more than drunk driving. What about the use of cell phones and the amount of distracted driving that has created? I see examples of that EVERY day. How about we create a device to make cell phones inoperable when a motor vehicle is moving? That would save more lives than drunk driving laws.

Heck how about just bring back alcohol prohibition? What purpose does alcohol serve besides creating drunk drivers and all kinds of other social and health problems.

Yeah, let's do that. Let's create laws that punish responsible adults so we can protect a few.

Price increases on used cars are high in 2021…

Ukraine Gas Expert said:

---

You really think that's what this is about? If so that addresses the problem with people right now.

These politicians do NOT care about society or keeping drunk drivers off the road. If they did, then they would create something that disabled texting while driving or other items. Distracted driving is rapidly increasing but it isn't important enough because it's not emotional.

This is invasive and a way to generate money. We are going to have to pay for these, the maintenance, the registration, the upkeep. Privacy will be impacted (testing results stored and likely used in some manner to grab more money from citizens).

Do not confuse this with me implying people should drink and drive, they shouldn't. As you said, take an Uber, no reason not to these days honestly.

In typical fashion people get warm fuzzies believing it's a kind act, but it has no real good intentions other than a way to tax or punish the majority of people not breaking the law to capture the small percentage doing so.

---

You make some good points.

I agree there is the potential for a slippery slope here. That would certainly be a concern.

The other argument against my argument would be "why are they treating people like criminals" -- considering that mandatory breathalyzers in cars have been for people who have been convicted of that crime previously.

That being said, I doubt this is a cash grab for the government. DWI's are big business, and if you can't start a car when drunk, that will pretty much eliminate that stream.

Also, not sure how the government will profit by requiring auto manufacturers to add a piece of technology to their product. These mechanisms are pretty cheap and it would be no sweat to add them. I have a reasonably priced car and it has seven cameras on it. This isn't rocket science.

What the **** do employees have to do with everyone? What a terrible comparison.

Quote:

---

Yeah, let's do that. Let's create laws that punish responsible adults

---

How does this law punish responsible adults? Seriously. Answer that.

Quote:

---

so we can protect a few.

---

10,000 people were killed last year in DWI accidents. 1/3 of every traffic accident fatality was a result of a drunk driver.

Is that a FEW?

TxAgswin said:

---

Oh, no! Lives will be saved.

What a tragedy.

---

Illegal aliens will still mow people down with impunity. Laws don't apply to them.

Just imagine how many stranded motorists we are going to have when this piece of equipment inevitably breaks, gets dirty, etc. And you are going to end up asking poor people to replace a $2k+ device in their car that is worth $2k. You truly must have the mind of a child to think this is practical. But that is what most liberals are, low iq children incapable of gaming out reality. These things require constant maintenance and recalibration.

Could we start by just enforcing the laws we already have and take people with multiple DUIs off the roads permanently? Same with firearm laws, domestic abuse, drug trafficking, driving without a license, driving without liability insurance, etc, etc. Maybe sanction or remove Soros DAs that don't prosecute and jail dangerous offenders?

backintexas2013 said:

---

What the **** do employees have to do with everyone? What a terrible comparison.

---

Uh...well, we were talking about the government's reach to check whether someone is intoxicated or used drugs. Which is the crux of the argument. Furthermore, employees are pretty much everyone. So...

Not a terrible comparison. An appropriate prescedent.

TxAgswin said:

---

Ukraine Gas Expert said:

---

You really think that's what this is about? If so that addresses the problem with people right now.

These politicians do NOT care about society or keeping drunk drivers off the road. If they did, then they would create something that disabled texting while driving or other items. Distracted driving is rapidly increasing but it isn't important enough because it's not emotional.

This is invasive and a way to generate money. We are going to have to pay for these, the maintenance, the registration, the upkeep. Privacy will be impacted (testing results stored and likely used in some manner to grab more money from citizens).

Do not confuse this with me implying people should drink and drive, they shouldn't. As you said, take an Uber, no reason not to these days honestly.

In typical fashion people get warm fuzzies believing it's a kind act, but it has no real good intentions other than a way to tax or punish the majority of people not breaking the law to capture the small percentage doing so.

---

You make some good points.

I agree there is the potential for a slippery slope here. That would certainly be a concern.

The other argument against my argument would be "why are they treating people like criminals" -- considering that mandatory breathalyzers in cars have been for people who have been convicted of that crime previously.

That being said, I doubt this is a cash grab for the government. DWI's are big business, and if you can't start a car when drunk, that will pretty much eliminate that stream.

Also, not sure how the government will profit by requiring auto manufacturers to add a piece of technology to their product. These mechanisms are pretty cheap and it would be no sweat to add them. I have a reasonably priced car and it has seven cameras on it. This isn't rocket science.

---

You are right, its not rocket science. Its nanny-statist at its finest. What about when you are on your own property? Are these contraptions disabled? I doubt it. If I wanna drive around my deer lease or on my own property while I drink a few beer, the government now gets to stop me? Screw this law or proposal or whatever it is at this point and anyone who supports it.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Just imagine how many stranded motorists we are going to have when this piece of equipment inevitably breaks, gets dirty, etc. And you are going to end up asking poor people to replace a $2k+ device in their car that is worth $2k. You truly must have the mind of a child to think this is practical. But that is what most liberals are, low iq children incapable of gaming out reality. These things require constant maintenance and recalibration.

---

They cost about $70.

It's easy to win arguments if you just make stuff up.

PER MONTH

If you have to get one, they charge $70-100 to install and $70-100 PER MONTH to lease it.

Child

cevans_40 said:

---

TxAgswin said:

---

Ukraine Gas Expert said:

---

You really think that's what this is about? If so that addresses the problem with people right now.

These politicians do NOT care about society or keeping drunk drivers off the road. If they did, then they would create something that disabled texting while driving or other items. Distracted driving is rapidly increasing but it isn't important enough because it's not emotional.

This is invasive and a way to generate money. We are going to have to pay for these, the maintenance, the registration, the upkeep. Privacy will be impacted (testing results stored and likely used in some manner to grab more money from citizens).

Do not confuse this with me implying people should drink and drive, they shouldn't. As you said, take an Uber, no reason not to these days honestly.

In typical fashion people get warm fuzzies believing it's a kind act, but it has no real good intentions other than a way to tax or punish the majority of people not breaking the law to capture the small percentage doing so.

---

You make some good points.

I agree there is the potential for a slippery slope here. That would certainly be a concern.

The other argument against my argument would be "why are they treating people like criminals" -- considering that mandatory breathalyzers in cars have been for people who have been convicted of that crime previously.

That being said, I doubt this is a cash grab for the government. DWI's are big business, and if you can't start a car when drunk, that will pretty much eliminate that stream.

Also, not sure how the government will profit by requiring auto manufacturers to add a piece of technology to their product. These mechanisms are pretty cheap and it would be no sweat to add them. I have a reasonably priced car and it has seven cameras on it. This isn't rocket science.

---

You are right, its not rocket science. Its nanny-statist at its finest. What about when you are on your own property? Are these contraptions disabled? I doubt it. If I wanna drive around my deer lease or on my own property while I drink a few beer, the government now gets to stop me? Screw this law or proposal or whatever it is at this point and anyone who supports it.

---

Just yank it out if you're using it on your own property.

All a painfully obvious ploy to make personal vehicles unaffordable and undesirable to anyone but the mega rich and politician class

Gotta force the serfs onto trains and buses which only go where governments allows when government allows

DannyDuberstein said:

---

PER MONTH

If you have to get one, they charge $70-100 to install and $70-100 PER MONTH to lease it.

Child

---

It's $70 installed and you can own it.

As we mentioned, it won't be a reporting device, it will just govern your ignition, so the monthly won't matter. It will be a nominal cost, particularly if built into the manufacturing line and absorbed by enormous economies of scale.

How much do airbags and seatbelts cost?

TxAgswin said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

What the **** do employees have to do with everyone? What a terrible comparison.

---

Uh...well, we were talking about the government's reach to check whether someone is intoxicated or used drugs. Which is the crux of the argument. Furthermore, employees are pretty much everyone. So...

Not a terrible comparison. An appropriate prescedent.

---

Wrong. The government can do it for their employees. Are you saying we should now all be considered employees of the government?

Maroon Dawn said:

---

All a painfully obvious ploy to make personal vehicles unaffordable and undesirable to anyone but the mega rich and politician class

Gotta force the serfs onto trains and buses which only go where governments allows when government allows

---

This is nothing new...

Quote:

---

When David Hollister introduced a seat belt bill in Michigan in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, the state representative received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.

Resistance to the life-saving devices at the time was the norm.

---

Seat Belt Law Resistance

This is simply a safety regulation. Everyone is so hyper-sensitive about their "freedom" that they have lost sight that some laws are actually good for everyone.

RulesForTheeNotForMe said:

---

Man, politicians aren't going to be able to drive at all once this goes into effect. I've never personally met a politician that isn't a daily noon drunk type.

---

Expect future legislation to exempt congress persons/staff/federal office holders from this, a la Obamacare.

Good for everyone? By what definition?

TxAgswin said:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, let's do that. Let's create laws that punish responsible adults

---

How does this law punish responsible adults? Seriously. Answer that.

Quote:

---

so we can protect a few.

---

10,000 people were killed last year in DWI accidents. 1/3 of every traffic accident fatality was a result of a drunk driver.

Is that a FEW?

---

I'm sorry but if I have to explain how creating another law to enforce an existing law isn't infringing on my freedoms you wouldn't understand anyway.

TxAgswin said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

PER MONTH

If you have to get one, they charge $70-100 to install and $70-100 PER MONTH to lease it.

Child

---

It's $70 installed and you can own it.

As we mentioned, it won't be a reporting device, it will just govern your ignition, so the monthly won't matter. It will be a nominal cost, particularly if built into the manufacturing line and absorbed by enormous economies of scale.

How much do airbags and seatbelts cost?

---

These devices have to be calibrated, it isn't a 'one-and-done' deal.

To your other points. Comparing this move to random drug testing done by an employer isn't the same. I am not required to blow into a device or give a blood sample every time I enter my office or try to login to my computer. Additionally, if we are going down this path, there is 'random' testing for drunk driving. Police officers can choose from many locations to watch for impaired driving. They then have probable cause to stop you and prove one way or another.

Actions like this usually have something on the surface that "seem" like a good idea, but it is wrapped in a MASSIVE over-reach and giving away freedoms, both directly and indirectly down the road.

The best way to avoid the inevitable slippery slope is to NOT do things like this.

nortex97 said:

---

RulesForTheeNotForMe said:

---

Man, politicians aren't going to be able to drive at all once this goes into effect. I've never personally met a politician that isn't a daily noon drunk type.

---

Expect future legislation to exempt congress persons/staff/federal office holders from this, a la Obamacare.

---

The politburo has personal drivers and cars provided by the state.

They are not $70 even if you buy upfront. Looking at ballpark of $1000 just to get a cheapo amazon type one