Rights, privileges and freedoms

By Letters to the Editor
From page A5 | 9 Comments

EDITOR:

The state of California now requires that a person found guilty of drinking and driving will now be required to pay for an alcohol-sensing device to be installed in their vehicle to prevent said person from driving irresponsibly. It makes the roads safer and is viewed as a revenue enhancement device for our fair state. There is talk in Sacramento right now on whether to have all vehicles driven by Californians to be outfitted with this device for safety’s sake. It is clear that over the last couple of generations our residents have been programmed to ignore personal responsibility, thus having our government legislate it for us. This is the trend and as a cancer survivor I feel that since to be an American one now needs to purchase health care, thus making this responsibility a collective whole. That colon cancer is the second largest killer in our society, many lives could be saved if early prevention was obtained. This prevention could drastically reduce our health care cost. So I propose that all automobiles have a sigmoidoscopy machine installed in every vehicle to provide a monthly check up for all our citizens.

KEN STEERS
Cameron Park

Letters to the Editor

View all my stories Email Me

Discussion | 9 comments

The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

James E.September 10, 2012 - 4:11 pm
This would certainly curtail motor vehicle use.
Report abusive comment
Phillip VeerkampSeptember 10, 2012 - 7:14 pm
Ken, do you really want probing commentary?
Report abusive comment
more good ideasSeptember 10, 2012 - 8:27 pm
Next up: gun powder detection devices, marijuana sniffers and hate speech alarms.
Report abusive comment
Foaming at the MouthSeptember 11, 2012 - 9:41 pm
The government already reads my thoughts, so how much worse can it get?
Report abusive comment
DarrinSeptember 12, 2012 - 9:45 am
Arghhhh, PHIL!!! Why do people have to be so anal about this? All vehicles driven by Californians should have these features.
Report abusive comment
Richard DeshanSeptember 12, 2012 - 7:38 pm
I don't care if you get colon cancer. I do care if you get drunk and drive, cuz you will kill someone, and it could be me. Today, I saw a young woman roll her vehicle on Hwy 193. The car was totaled, the roof smashed in, but the woman escaped without a single scratch, due entirely to "nanny state government" safety requirements such as seat belts, air bags, and crash test performance. Yes, by all means, if there is a way to prevent people from driving while drunk, lets require it to be installed in every vehicle.
Report abusive comment
Ken SteersSeptember 12, 2012 - 10:19 pm
Have you known someone who has died of colon cancer? It is a very painful incideous way to die. If you are for government mandated breathalyzers in all cars with the hope of preventing a drunk driver from hurting someone, then why a void of empathy for my solution?
Report abusive comment
Really??September 13, 2012 - 12:14 am
You really can't see the distinction? What a dim bulb.
Report abusive comment
Jack MartinSeptember 13, 2012 - 10:49 am
That was a cheeky way of making a point, Ken, No doubt it will be lost on some. Richard, while it is true that government rules require the installation and use of those safety items in cars, I do wish to point out the government had nothing whatsoever to do with their invention and development. Private industry, mostly racing organizations, are responsible for nearly all safety enhancement devices in use on cars today. They were developed with private money by private individuals who "built" them from nothing. Attributing them to government efficacy is misguided.
Report abusive comment