When will the government learn that it all too often makes a miserable baby-sitter? Apparently, not soon enough.
Last week, the New Mexico House of Representatives passed a bill requiring all car-owning citizens to breathe into “alcohol detection devices” (usually called “ignition interlocks”) installed in their own cars in order to unlock the ignition. The New Mexico Senate will now consider the issue.
Although the law’s intentions are good, the unintended consequences of setting this new regulatory bar are staggering. The most pressing problem with the idea is the absurdly high cost and the harsh reality that it would be passed down to the consumer (we’re pretty sure that the government would be unwilling to foot the bill). According to Reuters, the device currently costs $1,000 — and that’s before installation. It defies reason that these lawmakers could possibly rationalize forcing mostly law-abiding taxpayers to fund such an expensive device. A middle-class working family with two cars would pay a minimum of $2,000 to clean up the government’s inability to stop drunken driving.
Second, implementation of the device would be a nightmare. Would car manufacturers be required to install the device or would consumers need to take their cars to a dealership? What about out-of-state drivers who don’t have a device? What consequences will befall consumers who uninstall it from the car? What if it breaks and consumers can’t start their car even though they haven’t been drinking? (Last we checked, any object the government requires to be installed in a car, such as seatbelts or registration tags, won’t keep the car from starting if it breaks).
Beyond these two considerations, one must also analyze how effective the devices would be. Consider this: A student goes to a party, knocks back several beers, pays somebody $20 to blow into the ignition for him and he’s on his way.
Allowing the government to assume that all drivers have been drinking before they even enter the car is frightening territory. A similar debate surrounds the issue of gun control: Advocates say firearms should be restricted so people can’t use them for violent means, which assumes that all people who pick up a gun will potentially use it in this way.
And we all know how well gun control goes over in the realm of political discourse. Many would argue that gun control doesn’t stop violence, instead failing to address the underlying problems in society that cause it.
Here’s an idea: stiffer penalties for drunken drivers. Currently, driving while under the influence in New Mexico becomes a felony only after the fourth offense. Likewise, anti-plea bargaining only kicks in if the accused driver had a blood alcohol level of .10 or above — the legal limit is below .08. New Mexico doesn’t impose harsh sanctions against repeat offenders, failing to employ minimum one-year “hard license suspension” and mandatory minimum sentences, either, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Before the New Mexico Legislature sets an example based on faulty assumptions that other state lawmakers around America might parrot, it should consider the unintended consequences and try stiffer penalties before infringing on the public’s freedom and the rights of the vast majority of citizens who don’t drive drunk.