This post is clearly a sports-related post, especially if you've ever tailgated.
A state legislator in Pennsylvania has drafted a bill that would require ALL new cars sold in Pennsylvania to have a breathalyzer interlock device installed by 2009. Anyone blowing over a 0.025 would not be able to start their car. In 2010, all used cars transferred would have to have the device installed. The legal limit is 0.08 throughout the U.S.
There are a billion things that will cause a false positive in breathalyzers due to their chemical similarity to alcohol. In addition, inhaled chemicals, such as lacquer or rubber cement fumes, actually cause a false positive. Diabetics and crash dieters also blow above a 0.02 because of the breakdown of acetones in their lungs. Smoking cigarettes can elevate the breathalyzer reading.
Here is the bill. Here is a partial list of breathalyzer inaccuracies.
March 27, 2007
Pennsylvania Proposes Interlock for All New Cars
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The US legal limit is 0.08, not 0.8, just to clarify. But I can't imagine anyone reading this blog doesn't know what the legal limit is.
I went ahead and corrected that throughout. It would be very tough to achieve .8 without a transfusion of Everclear.
.8 sounds like what people would blow after ingesting jungle juice at our parties at the house on University.
But seriously... I take an inhaler everyday and that would put me very close to that limit. That seems like a serious violation of due process... infringing on a property right of a license or ownership/usage of a car... for denying usage of a license or vehicle for conduct that is in full conformity with the law. I'm no constitution law expert, but I gotta think that bill doesn't even make it out of committee.
Oh, wow, I thought you had just gotten the 0.08 number wrong. I can't believe that they'll make it so your car won't work when you're under the legal limit!
Also, the whole decimal confusion thing reminded me of this. This guy got quoted a rate of .002 cents per kilobit of data on his cell phone but got charged a rate of .002 dollars. The transcript is hilarious.
That cell phone guy is a whiner. Who doesn't anticipate being overbilled by 10000%?
I don't know that I buy the due process argument, especially because the law only affects cars purchased new after 2009 or used after 2010. Yeah, it's a buttload overinclusive, but also smack dab in the middle of the police power. That means rational basis review.
I'm sure the fine legislators in PA will talk some sense into this moron.
But then you get into the intent of the law and even if it's rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective, didn't the legislature already speak when they made the legal limit .08? And wouldn't you be able to challenge anything that is above and beyond that restriction as something that is therefore not rational?
The legislature is allowed to speak more than once. A prior law making it illegal to operate a car with a BAC at or above .08 is not inherently in conflict with a law that says cars must contain a device that will not allow them to be started when the operator's BAC is over 0.025. Both rationally serve the government interest of preventing drunk driving.
Just to wrap up this legal talk. The review would be under the Dormant Commerce Clause. Since it does not facially impinge interstate commerce, the basis for review is whether the law places a "clearly excessive" burden on interstate commerce in relation to its putative local benefits.
It's arguable, but considering past laws that have withstood the scrutiny, I think the law would pass muster.
Still a stupid stupid stupid law, but constitutional.
One past, and particularly on-point, law is the California Emissions Standards.
But the people of California are legitimately retarded, and think those emissions laws make sense. I can't imagine a groundswell of support for something THIS extreme. This sounds to me like some politician had a "good" idea to get his name in the papers for doing something "constructive" with his time in office.
Oh yeah, this law is absolutely retarded. Imagine the first time a volunteer firefighter gets up at 3a, swigs some mouthwash, and jumps in his pickup to go to the station and respond to a car. Sorry, alcohol in the mouth, car won't start. Then meemaw fuses to her couch in a horrific Jiffy Pop fire because no one could come to save her.
But something can be retarded and constitutional at the same time (think Defense of Marriage Act). I'm just saying it can only be stopped by legislators being smart, not by courts after the fact.
And actually the Defense of Marriage Act is not constitutional, but that's for a different blog.
Post a Comment