"My objective is to resolve the DWI problem before the fact, before any more innocent people die. To do that we have to make sure no one will ever drive drunk, "
That is a quote from New Mexico state senator Rep. Ken Martinez from earlier this week. On February 27th the New Mexico state House Tax and Revenue Committee passed his bill, which if it became law, would require allnew cars sold in New Mexico after January 1, 2008 to have ingnition interlocks to test for alcohol. Used cars sold after January 2, 2009 would have to have the interlocks also. Along with the bill, there would be a $600 tax credit to help defer the costof squashing freedom of installing the little buggers.
The idea is to eliminate alll DWIs in five years. In a letter to the Albuquerque Journal evil fascist state representative Ken Martinez says:
Spend the money before anyone dies. Costs to prevent DWI will actually save money, and the savings will appear in lower car insurance premiums. Emergency room costs go down, as do health insurance costs. Apprehension, detection, prosecution, defense, incarceration and treatment of drunk drivers costs money. The price tag to nail a drunk driver is far more expensive than prevention is at the front end.
The phone rings at midnight. Ask yourself as a parent, which phone call would you rather receive, the car won't start or your son is dead?
First off, I symphathize with anyone who has been impacted by drunk diving. But to use an emotional ploy to make the case for infringing on privacy rights and the freedom of the majority of citizens who aren't driving after drinking is wrong.
The 5th Amendment to the constitution says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime.....
.....nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
According to Rep. W. Ken Martinez, about 214 died in alchohol related deaths. While that is bad, is that number high enough to infringe on the liberties of every single driver in the state? They already have laws to put interlocks on previously convited drunk drivers, but to require all drivers to have on is assuming guilt. In America it is innocent until proven guilty. In the American legal system it is the legal system which has the burden of proof. They have to prove your guilt. You do not have to prove your innocence. This bill, if passed, would change that.
In addition to squashing essential liberties, this law will just push auto business elsewhere. I know if I lived in New Mexico, and was buying a car, I would just visit a neighboring state to do so. Since the law only requires cars sold in New Mexico to have the interlocks, I would send my business outside the state. That means in-state businesses would be hurt. There would also be less revenue going into the state coffers. My taxes would go to neighboring states. I would punish them with my wallet.
Again, drunk driving is bad. You shouldn't do it. Period. But along with the rights and responsibilities of living in a free society is the consequences of making your own decicisions.
Benjamin Franklin said it nicely:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
