MADD’s Breathalyzer-in-every-car notion draws mixed reviews
MADD’s announcement earlier this week of a nationwide campaign to mandate ignition interlocks be installed in the cars of even first-time DUI offenders — and eventually all cars on the road — has sparked intense debate both on this site and nationwide.
You can read our original post here: “Questions to ask MADD before every car has a Breathalyzer.”
And vote in our poll here.
Here’s a sampling of what’s being said elsewhere.
The Chicago Sun-Times editorial board finds nothing but good in the MADD initiative.
The Oregonian finds nothing but good in MADD’s push, too, although it does give a nod to the practical implications and suggests that ubiquitous interlocks will have to await near-perfect technology.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin gives up a thumbs-up to wider use of interlocks and averts its eyes to the more contentious question of whether these things should become standard equipment.
The Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat & Chronicle finds pretty widespread support among advocates, but at least one law enforcement officer there is asking the proper pragmatic questions.
The Daily Herald in Washington state is against drunken driving and for tightening loopholes in existing laws. Not much to say about the issue that might actually generate controversy.
Leave it to those college students to ask the difficult questions: Piotr Brzezinski of the Harvard Crimson does a nice job of doing so here.
An Alabama newspaper group is on board with MADD all the way.
The author of a blog called “Homeland Stupidity” is writing about the MADD plan, too, and I’ll bet you can guess where he stands based on the name of his forum.
The Lufkin Daily News in Texas focuses on the unlikelihood of even the most extreme measures ever eliminating drunken driving altogether and hints that maybe, just maybe, MADD is aiming to go too far. The editors don’t actually come out and say so, however.
