Januray 14th, 2008
M.A.D.D. SCIENCE
As I read the latest story involving further encroachment into our private lives by the government, I couldn’t help but yell at the story. As a man who constantly argues the slippery slope, this latest proposal perfectly illustrates how, over time, the people of America will surrender their rights in the name of “public safety.”
Rather than recreate the story for you, I have reprinted it below, courtesy of our partners at News 10 in Sacramento. (http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=36764)
Throughout the story, I have sprinkled in my common sense remarks (indicated by the use of underlined italics) designed to slow our inevitable march towards Fascism.
MADD Pushes For Tough New DUI Law
Written by Deborah Hoffman, Reporter
MADD is urging California lawmakers to implement a law that would require an ignition-locking device be placed in the vehicles of first-time DUI offenders. So, as I told you years ago, the slippery slope of Megan’s Law continues; people will serve their time, pay their debt to society, and still be presumed guilty. If they’re that dangerous, why do we let them out of prison? As we have seen with Megan’s Law, people who will break the law will not follow new ones. Pedophiles who leave jail intent on raping children simply register fake addresses, just like repeat DUI offenders will simply find or pay someone to help them start their vehicle. DUI offenders are not addicted to driving drunk, they’re addicted to alcohol and irresponsible behavior.
On March 16, 1990, Judy Utter's life was shattered. Her 18-year-old daughter Jennifer was killed in a drunk driving crash in Carmichael.
"It was devastating," said Utter. "Jennifer was a very smart girl, ready to go to college. She wanted to be a teacher."
But there was no college for Jennifer. No wedding. No children. "None of the things you plan for," said her mother.
Today, Judy Utter works as a victims' advocate with MADD. "I know she (Jennifer) would have wanted me to work to prevent another family from going through this," Utter said. I really doubt that, Ms. Utter. While the death of your daughter 17 years ago is tragic, it is also not an invitation for you to strip away the rights of the rest of America. If your daughter truly was a smart girl, she would beg you to read the U.S. Constitution and focus on the fourth amendment which demands that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Or, perhaps if your daughter was hoping to be a history teacher she would point you to all fascist regimes of the past, all of which argued “public safety” over personal freedoms.
Utter and MADD are lobbying to get California lawmakers to implement a law that would require alcohol ignition interlocks on the vehicles of first-time DUI offenders.
"It's a safety factor and it will save lives," said Utter. No it won’t. People will still drive drunk. Laws don’t change outcomes, enforcement and education do. People still drive without seatbelts and still die while doing so. This entire campaign is the repeating of history that we already lived through with cigarettes in America. Initially we were told how bad cigarettes were for us, but when that didn’t stop everyone from smoking, the behavior police insisted on banning smoking completely. Similarly, MADD began their campaign by stripping away our freedoms with DUI checkpoints, but now that Drunk driving accidents are rising again, it’s time for the next step towards outlawing alcohol altogether.
Interlock devices prevent a vehicle's ignition from working if alcohol is detected. A person breaths into a handheld device. That breath is passed over an electrical chip and when there is alcohol in the breath, the ignition system won't work.
MADD Chief Executive Officer Charles Hurley said first time offenders should be treated harshly. "First offenders aren't really first offenders," said Hurley. "It's first time caught. The science indicates that people that have been arrested on a first offense have driven drunk 87 times before." How Orwellien of you, Mr. Hurley. Using that logic, anyone that buys liquor ever should be fitted with an ankle monitor so that we can be ready to arrest them if they come within 1000 feet of a steering wheel.
New Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, and Louisiana all have ignition interlock laws on the books for first time DUI offenders. Yippee. Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming all prohibit DUI checkpoints because of their clear violation of the United States Constitution. I wonder if MADD is willing to follow the lead of those states?
"This isn't Big Brother. This is a safety factor," said Utter. "Why can't we use our tools and technology in a safe way to prevent death and destruction?" Using that argument, everyone should be in favor of cameras being installed in all American homes, since the number one cause of personal injury is in-home accidents. Since Ms. Utter wants to “use technology to prevent death and destruction,” we should monitor everyone all the time, just in case. Anything that makes us “safe,” takes away a freedom. It is an undeniable law of physics as related to personal rights. This has nothing to do with making people safe, it has everything to do with attempting to control people’s behavior and make people “feel” safe.
Utter said she'd like to see ignition interlock devices installed on every car, regardless of the driver's criminal record. "To me, it's a safety factor," Utter said. "We got used to wearing seatbelts. We are now accustomed to airbags. This is a safety issue." The best thing about being correct is that if you allow the other side to talk long enough, they eventually prove your point for you, as Ms. Utter did here. Seat belt laws are an absolute violation of our freedoms and rights. I have worn a seatbelt every day of my life not because it’s the law, but because my father taught me why I should do so and was correct. I do it for myself, not for Uncle Sam. Ms. Utter is justifying this latest encroachment on privacy, choice and freedom by pointing to an equally vile law already on the books. This is the slippery slope personified. Years ago, when California asked voters to allow law enforcement to extract DNA from all people arrested (not convicted, just arrested) people argued that it was “no different than fingerprinting.” Again, using other violations of rights to justify new ones and create further government databases doesn’t change the violation. Next decade, when California wants to swab your cheek weekly just because you have brown hair, make sure you think of me.
MADD does not currently have any California lawmakers lined up to sponsor ignition interlock legislation. "We're working on it," said Hurley. "We think we could see strong bipartisan support." Well of course that’s true. MADD and the media have done a fantastic job of creating a mass hysteria across the nation as it relates to Drunk driving. All death is, by definition, tragic, but when statistics are manipulated or hidden in the name of hysteria we have left the point of reason. Drunks kill around 40,000 people a year and yet prescription drugs kill over 200,000. Medical malpractice kills over 300,000 - but the media hasn't brainwashed Americans to be fearful or upset about the bigger dangers and so they don't care. The hyped specter of drunk driving deaths manipulates whining do-gooders to call for their own enslavement, anything to save a few lives.
Hurley said 75 percent of convicted drunk drivers continue to get behind the wheel because "they can." He said the ignition interlock devices would "stop that revolving door." First of all, there is absolutely no statistic anywhere that supports this man’s 75% claim; it’s simply anecdotal and based on junk science. Secondly, his claim that this device will “stop the revolving door,” is the same argument we heard to justify DUI checkpoints, Megan’s Law and all other forms of registries, scarlet letters and behavior control policies, yet the results never pan out. The most maddening thing about the behavior police is that they demand that we judge them on their intentions, not on their outcomes. When this attempt fails (as it will) M.A.D.D. will continue the campaign they have already started nationally to insist that all cars made and sold in America come equipped with ignition interlock devices. Equally as upsetting is that no one confronts the assault on our nation’s basic principles as it relates to why those who have never been convicted of drunken driving be compelled to prove they are innocent before being allowed to operate their own cars?
How far down the technology slope are we sliding? Certainly, any such standard automobile equipment could include a record-keeping component. At what point will attempted drunken driving become a crime? Thus insuring the arrest of someone who blows into their ignition interlock and register alcohol? Attempted murder and attempted robbery are already crimes and obviously anyone who blows into their ignition interlock system after drinking is attempting to drive while drunk so they should be subjected to the same laws, shouldn’t they? Certainly M.A.D.D. will continue to make their “better safe than sorry” appeals and the public will ignorantly embrace a further loss of personal rights in America.
|
