Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Nostradolfus?

A few months ago I asked a Dolf Hypothetical that stirred up a nationwide firestorm of controversy.
If car makers came up with an extremely low cost and transparent device that would not allow a drunk driver to operate an automobile, should it be installed in every vehicle sold?

Some people accused me of being a communist? Others said such technology would prevent drunk people from saving lives, "Who would be liable if lifesaving help was prevented because of the device? " God! If I only had a dollar for every time I have read about an intoxicated hero driving an injured soul to safety...

Anyway... Check out this article, "MADD Urges Use of Tech To Fight Drunk Driving".

One of the most interesting passages:
Among the possible solutions, she said, is a device that shines light into the skin and can detect the level of alcohol in a person's system. Ferguson also cited a device that measures the alcohol level in sweat or skin vapor when an individual places his or her arm or thumb on a sensor, and another that would detect abnormal hand or eye movements associated with intoxication.

This stuff is going to be here before you know it. And remember, I told you so!

8 comments:

Wrecking Machine said...

Just because you told us so doesn't make it right.

Aren't you sick of laws that are for your own good? I know you don't smoke anymore, but what do you think about that smoking ban about to go into affect in Ohio? Sure, drunk drivers are worse, but if they are not punished, they are not deterred from doing it. There was a man who recently had his 13th DUI, and they took his truck away. 13 DUIs!!!! Why didn't they send his ass to prison after 2?

I'm sick of the government sticking their heads in to tell us all what is for our own good. First smoking and drinking, how long before they make laws that tell us that teens HAVE to abstain from sex or face jail time? How long before people are turned away from jobs simply because they are smokers (wait, that happens NOW!!) You know, while we're at it, you aren't allowed to have kids because your genes are more likely to pass on some negative quality.

Privacy is a big deal, whether you or these 'for your own good' nutbags like to admit it. The more privacy and freedom you give up, the more you let the government and this vast minority composed of loud-mouthed goody-two-shoes run your life.

MattyP said...

"a device that shines light into the skin and can detect the level of alcohol in a person's system"?

Away with you and your crazy-ass voodoo technology! This is the stuff that makes people wear aluminum foil hats.

Dolf said...

I believe in a person's right to smoke and drink. I even believe in the right to take illegal drugs - if that's what you want to do. But the second that someone's vices negatively intersect with me is when I can start bitching.

I think it's obvious that our legal system is worthless against drunk drivers. Technology has a much better chance at being successful. If technology can thwart the "right" to drive drunk, I am all for it.

As for the smoking law... Even when I smoked two packs a day, I never felt I had the right to smoke inside.

When the government wants to ban smoking entirely (even in your home), then I'll be on your side on the issue.

Again, technology could someday come to the rescue - smokeless cigarettes, or perhaps an air filtration system that infallibly removes carcinogens and that sweet smoky smell from the air. ummmm, smoke...

Wrecking Machine said...

I think it's obvious that our legal system is worthless against drunk drivers. Technology has a much better chance at being successful. If technology can thwart the "right" to drive drunk, I am all for it.

Perhaps we should replace our law enforcement and lawmakers with computers. I, for one, welcome our emotionless, logical, process driven, cold steel and silicon overlords.

Anyhow, this shows we don't need more laws and rules to get things in line. After all, what good does it do to make more laws and rules if the enforcers still suck? What we need is some judges and prosecutors who go balls out to unleash the fury on law-breakers.

As for the smoking law... Even when I smoked two packs a day, I never felt I had the right to smoke inside.

When you were in a bar, you had the right to do anything the bar owner/manager gave you the right to do. If smoking is 'bad for business', why didn't businesses enact the no smoking bans on their own? (Applebee's did, and it worked well for them; a couple bars did and they lost business, so they went back.) If you don't like second hand smoke at the restaurant, pick another restaurant. If second-hand smoke is such a work hazard, why don't the workers choose another place to work? That's what free market is all about.

Plus, did you know that coal mining is a dangerous job? Should we ban all coal as an energy source to protect the workers? Granted, smoking is recreation and coal is industry, I think the same idea applies for work place hazards.

Dolf said...

I am perfectly cool with "smoking bars" and "smoking restaurants". It is then *your* choice to eat (or work!) there.

I worked in Utah for a few months in 1995. They had a strict 'no alcohol' law. However, there were private "clubs" (bars) where drinking could go on. Of course, you had to buy a "membership" (a huge cover charge) to get in.

I wouldn't be surprised if similar loopholes are discovered and utilized by you dirty, dirty smokers ;)

"There is always a solution." -- A.E. Muccillo Jr.

Wrecking Machine said...

What's the E stand for?

Dolf said...

Ernesto.

Thus, the first, middle, and last all end with an "o". Very lyrical. Very beautiful. Just like me.

Wrecking Machine said...

You ruin the music and beauty by using 'Jr.' Use 'II' (read 'the Second'), and it sounds better.