Allright, so in college (especially the first year) you're definitely bombarded by a lot of alochol education pamphlets. Most of it's pretty redundant stuff like: What's blood alcohol level/concentration? Can people die from overconsumption of alcohol? Is there really a cure for a hangover? However, there was one thing that I didn't know too much about, and it raised some conflict in my mind whether implementing this thing should be policy.
It's called an ignition interlock system. So here's the deal. In a study, people with multiple DUI offenses were given either the choice of using the ignition interlock system for one year or a restricted license. The ignition interlock system is when you breathe into a breathalizer attached to your car and if there is no alcohol on the driver's reading, he/she can turn the ignition. If there's any trace of alcohol he/she can't. The study found that the IIS reduced recidivism in its drivers far greater than the suspended license. However, when the device was not in the car and the drivers were studied over the next year, their DUI's increased equal to that of the regulated license group. So this means for it to be really effective, it would have to be in the car for life.
This brings up many questions like, doesn't seem a little "big brother" for you not to start your car without passing this test. However, I really don't see it that way. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Anyway, you had to pass a test to get your driver's license to drive a car. Why should this be any different? Anyway, if the person thinks that their civil liberties are being taken away, I say, you should have considered that before you decided to take hundreds of people's lives in your hands when you decide to get in a car under the influence. Of course, this method is not a cure-all because there are many implementation problems such as having a friend breathe into it for you, but it seems like a feasible method to control the issue of drunk driving.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
