Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

France's Bold Drunk-Driving Legislation - Every Car To Carry a Breathalyzer

Posted by Soulskill on from the now-you'll-get-people-trying-to-beat-their-high-score dept.

Zothecula writes "It is a great irony that alcohol should be legislated into becoming man's most commonly used recreational drug, as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user. This is most evident on our roads, where even in first world countries with low road tolls, alcohol still accounts for between a third and a half of road deaths. Now France is to attempt a novel solution — from July of this year, it will become law in France to have a working breathalyzer in every car on the road, with enforcement beginning November 1."

9 of 706 comments (clear)

  1. the only drug? by Surt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:the only drug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.

      Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.

    2. Re:the only drug? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.

      Ever seen those Faces of Meth advertisements? It's quite harmful to the user as well as the bystander. Alcohol on the other hand encourages severe lapses in judgement and reaction when operating heavy machinery, which usually kills people nearby but leaves the drunk unaffected, if only because liquor makes their body a doughy mass to be thrown about while sober people tense up and break bones and crap.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:the only drug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.

      This is the correct answer. Be it prohibition of alcohol, meth, pot, etc... the illegal status causes a great deal of the violence.

      We'd have a lot less garage explosions if methamphetamines could be produced in a professional lab somewhere, with QA and such.

    4. Re:the only drug? by Brain-Fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is a common line of thinking among those who haven't thought things through.

      1) When you make a highly-desired commodity illegal, you create organized crime. Mafia bosses who have no qualms about sending your children home minus a few digits just to make a point wind up receiving tremendous economic power from people who want the item. This level of crime is far worse, and far harder for the police to protect against, than random muggings by petty junkies.

      2) You assume that once it becomes legal, demand will increase significantly. This is very fallacious. Most people who desire to use drugs already do so, whether it is legal or not. The only people who refrain from using drugs due to their legal status are precisely the sort of people who are responsible enough to keep their use under control. Furthermore, the current (illegal) users who are the type that would lose control and start mugging people to fuel the habit are already doing so. So, even if usage increases, crime does not increase.

      3) Once legal, it can be taxed to fund addiction clinics and other support services that users can now turn to without fear of legal punishment. So, that naturally helps to control the problem and further reduce crime.

    5. Re:the only drug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2) You assume that once it becomes legal, demand will increase significantly. This is very fallacious. Most people who desire to use drugs already do so, whether it is legal or not. The only people who refrain from using drugs due to their legal status are precisely the sort of people who are responsible enough to keep their use under control.

      Legalization might not change the behavior of adults, who are likely to retain the stigmatization of use, but will change behavior of the maturing generation. A substantial amount of alcohol use among slightly underage and newly legal drinkers is binge drinking, especially in places where alcohol is freely and readily available. Marijuana and other drugs may also be "available," but there is a great difference between having to know the right people or places to score, and having a tray of joints laid out at the fraternity door. There are certainly people who don't enjoy the taste of alcohol, but still drink to be more at ease socially, or to mimic the behavior of people around them. Some of those people will switch from legal alcohol to legal marijuana. Some of the people who have 'a couple shots' at home before going out to the bars or clubs, will also switch.

      Finally, I would suggest that a lot of people over the age of 25 refrain from drug use because of the legal consequences, and disagree with your claim that most of the people who would use marijuana already do. The reason you doubt this is the reason they used to call marijuana a 'gateway drug.' The behavior has become normalized, at least within your social group. Once you normalize a criminal behavior, it supposedly becomes easier to break more serious laws. To migrate from schedule 8 to schedule 7 or schedule 3.

  2. who's paying for it? by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who will be paying for it to be installed in my car? (speaking as a theoretical Frenchwoman... haven't lived in France since 1997). Those things are expensive, and beyond the means of some people who own cars.

    1. Re:who's paying for it? by Cinder6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people seem to be thinking it's an interlock device, rather than a standalone breathalyzer. In that case, assuming $1 per car trip, driving every day and a minimum of two trips (one to destination, one back home), it would be ~$730/year or more.

      But since that isn't the case, then the point is moot. It's a couple bucks a year at minimum, more if you get pulled over and are forced to use them a lot.

      My problem is efficiency. If it's not an interlock, how is it in any way improving public safety? What's the point? Why not just have the police carry around breathalyzers? That way, there's no chance the driver won't be able to take the test, and you won't have millions of people wasting money on these portable--

      Oh. There it is. It's just a way to get money for the breathalyzer manufacturers, as well as for the government to pat themselves on the back for a job well done in "improving public safety" with this do-nothing legislation.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
  3. Re:good thing they don't have laws in france by berashith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a problem occurs if you dont think that you are drunk, but in fact you are over the limit. A device like this could help.

    I learned a good lesson long ago to solve the "maybe" issue... If you arent sure if you are too drunk to drive home, order a shot. Now you are certain.