« For your own good, of course! | Main | Will work for taxes »

May 03, 2008

All your carz belong ...

"It's for your own good" is the sincere, if often times wrong-headed, excuse for creeping Nannystatism. A minor kerfuffle has kicked up with the use of Lindsay Lohan's mugshot in an American Beverage Association Institute ad in USA Today opposing the broadening use of ignition interlock devices ("breathalizers" in cars that drivers must use, and pass, before the car will turn on).

The full-page black-and-white ad appeared in USA Today on Friday and was paid for by the American Beverage Institute, a trade group that supports the interests of the alcohol industry. The ad reads "Ignition interlocks are a good idea for" above Lohan's mug shot from her July 24, 2007 arrest and "But a bad idea for us" above smaller photos of people drinking.

Ms. Lohan's spokeshole whined about USA Today's irresponsibility in running such an ad on May 2nd "suggesting that drinking and driving is some kind of American 'tradition' we should protect" yet the ad seems more of a response to USA Today's article on April 24, reporting on the push to mandate IID for all first-time DUI offenders and eventually as standard equipment on all cars
New York state legislators are considering requiring the devices on all cars and trucks by 2009. And automakers, already close to offering the devices as optional equipment on all Volvo and Saab models in Sweden, are considering whether to bring the technology here. [...]

The New York bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, who also sponsored the bill that became the first law banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. To those who say neither the public nor the technology is ready for such a universal application, Ortiz says he heard similar complaints about the cellphone ban and hands-free technology. He compares the criticism to early complaints about mandatory safety belts.


"Slippery-slope" arguments from people concerned about encroaching Nannystatism are routinely dismissed, yet such authoritarians as Ortiz use passage of prior, ostensibly reasonable measures, as justification for dismissing current concerns and precedent for current advocacy.
For automakers, anything that keeps a car from starting sounds too much like the public relations nightmare that came out of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 1973 decision to require devices that would prevent cars from starting if seat belts weren't buckled. After a huge public outcry and widespread disconnections, Congress passed a law the following year prohibiting NHTSA from requiring seat belt interlocks or warning buzzers lasting more than eight seconds.

Some critics say alcohol-related interlocks would be even more problematic than seat belt interlocks because about 40% of adults say they don't drink at all. MADD's Hurley says most people don't steal or have their cars stolen, but keys still have built-in anti-theft technology.

[Assemblyman Felix] Ortiz agrees: "This is a tool that will save lives. We have to stop putting parameters on it."


But does it "save lives?" How effective is the IID? Money quote:
The results of these studies have been mixed, although most of the results suggested that IIDs have reduced DUI reoccurrences in offenders. That’s only if the instrument remains in the car. However, once the IID is removed from the car, the chances of another DUI incident occurring goes back up. This suggests that IIDs are not going to actually change people’s behavior. It only prevents them from driving their own car when they’re drunk. They’re going to continue to drink whether or not the instrument is installed.

And there's the rub busybodies like Ortiz miss (or ignore).

Most first-time, low-level (.08-.1) DUI offenders are going to be mortified and they will change their behavior -- i.e. doubling down on making sure never to drive even if they have had one drink. The multiple offenders, or those that are caught with very high BAC are people who are alcoholics, people who already have a problem with alcohol that even an IID is not going to "fix" even as it protects others from them. Those are the people who are and should be the target of IID technology and have it made a permanent part of their driving privileges.

I dare say I've seen more DUI police reports than Mr. Ortiz and I opine that his (and other universal IID advocates) are less driven by "safety for all" than by a desire to demonize even social drinking.

I realized just how much even mild social drinking as been frowned upon in American culture when, on a trip to France, I found myself mildly scandalized seeing people having a glass of wine with lunch on a workday. There is no American business today whose HR department doesn't have a "zero-tolerance" policy to any alcohol consumption during work hours. Even public schools are into monitoring student behavior even when the student isn't on campus.

The more intrusive and controlling the law, then less commitment to personal responsibility.

Because we are teh victims!

**Please let me apologize for mis-identifying the sponsor of the ad in question

Posted by Darleen at May 3, 2008 01:33 PM

Comments

I like the fact that Luna Park offers half glasses of wine with lunch; that sounds perfect to me.

I have two minds about the modern American quasi-temperance movement: on the one hand, I'm glad that we've stigmatized drunk driving; that's as it should be. But I'm not glad that we've stigmatized "drinking and driving," which implies that not even one glass of wine with dinner is acceptable. That's silly.

It's like you said: the American attitude probably cuts down on alcoholic behavior "on the margins," but does nothing to affect the hard-core drinkers who are most dangerous. I, for one, resent the radio ads that tell me "buzz driving is drunk driving." According to their logic, no one should drive after taking cold medicine, either. And no one should drive while upset. Perhaps this is an area in which individuals can exercise some judgment?

Carrie Nation lives.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 3, 2008 09:34 PM

Hi Darleen,

This ad was not placed by the American Beverage Association- it was placed by the American Beverage Institute. We at the American Beverage Association represent the manufacturers and bottlers of the non-alcoholic beverage industry and have no affiliation with ABI.

Thanks,

Ashley Christoff
American Beverage Association

Posted by: American Beverage Association at May 5, 2008 12:07 PM

Now that's some quality trolling. Just scrolling down it I lost IQ points, I'm sure.

Posted by: Chris at May 12, 2008 03:58 PM

http://jess-wakefield.bekygim.info http://kacey-jordan.bekygim.info http://tit-21-185.zijyty.info http://girl-228.yhodiul.info http://asian-31-410.lyquxy.info http://pregnant-8-314.zabypow.info http://lesbian-91.ywymif.info http://penis-4-486.yzotez.info http://jana-foxy.bekygim.info http://nude-89-351.yzotez.info http://lesbian-10-20.ywymif.info http://lawanda.bekygim.info http://laurie-vargas.bekygim.info http://porn-90.zabypow.info http://angel-amore.isuovik.info http://sim-3.hiregu.info
http://mature-20-48.ywymif.info

Posted by: Jeffrey at June 6, 2008 10:16 PM

techniques fingering pussy technique technique pussy techniques fingering

Posted by: techniques fingering pussy technique at June 7, 2008 05:27 PM

Gq4Pn7 yympootvwpks, [url=http://dyotprwihouu.com/]dyotprwihouu[/url], [link=http://ezrvlexdexae.com/]ezrvlexdexae[/link], http://ecxcznxfwvig.com/

Posted by: fspoyi at June 19, 2008 11:51 PM

2QUGKq fxsqnmxrhsgr, [url=http://qlvlilbufwlb.com/]qlvlilbufwlb[/url], [link=http://tffaeyqwkmmy.com/]tffaeyqwkmmy[/link], http://reuslbzmpafi.com/

Posted by: xpstrrnoya at June 26, 2008 07:33 AM