Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Random sobriety tests for drivers
From Debatepedia
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Are random breath tests for drivers a good idea? |
This article is based on a Debatabase entry written by Alex Deane. Because this document can be modified by any registered user of this site, its contents should be cited with care.
|
Is random breath testing "time well-spent" by police? | |
Yes
|
No
|
Argument #2 | |
YesDrink driving is a scourge of modern life. Every developed country – and most less developed – suffer from it. People continue to fail to take the act, and its consequences, seriously yet each year hundreds of people die unnecessarily, including many completely innocent passengers, pedestrians and other drivers - all killed by people unable to control their vehicle because they have been drinking. The only way to stop it is to carry out random testing which will make people realise that they may be tested at any time. |
NoOf course drink driving is wrong. You are wasting time trying to convince us of that – we all know it. The debate has to be about whether random testing will do anything, and whether it is proportionate to the problem concerned. Many countries have had random testing for some time and have seen no real fall in drink driving figures. For those that have seen such a fall, can you distinguish the effects of random testing from the accompanying advertising and awareness campaigns, which can also be conducted without the testing? |
Argument #3 | |
YesAll the high-flown nonsense about the privacy of the individual being invaded and so forth must be dismissed. It’s blowing into a tube for goodness sakes! Occasionally having to do that is a fair price to pay for being trusted with a huge lump of speeding metal (i.e. a car) – oh, and many lives might be saved, into the bargain. Have a sense of perspective! |
NoThere are civil liberties issues concerned that must not be swept aside. Random testing constitutes an ‘unreasonable search’ in USA terminology – i.e. it is being carried out without due cause. The state should not interfere with citizens unless it has just cause to suspect that they are doing something wrong. Permitting things like this distorts the nature of the relationship between citizen and state. |
Argument #4 | |
YesIt can hardly be called an invasion of privacy or an investigation without due cause, because random tests are routinely carried out by many train companies and are being introduced on airlines. |
NoIt is different when it comes to pilots and train drivers etc, who are professionally employed to move others around – that is a workplace responsibility to remain sober, something we expect equally of those operating heavy machinery – and, for that matter, for people in offices etc! That kind of testing is about your job and making employment conditional on random testing is a very different principle from stopping Joe Public in the street. For that matter, plenty of people oppose testing in the workplace, too. It’s a completely different debate. |
Argument #5 | |
YesThe technology used for testing is becoming more and more accurate. Furthermore, attacks on it are oppositions to any sort of breath-testing for drink driving, not just random testing. Presumably the opposition don’t think that we should stop testing completely? |
NoBodies absorb alcohol at different rates. This results in very unfair readings – some people will have very little to drink (and be in control), yet still trigger the machine, whilst others will have had more, and are still ‘ok.’ Furthermore, breath test kits make mistakes all the time – that is why people have the right to go for a second test at the police station. |
Argument #6 | |
YesThe opposition can hardly rely on the notion that individuals should be allowed to judge for themselves, since the very point is that people have consistently failed to behave responsibly – that’s why we need testing at all. After all, one of the key effects of alcohol is that it clouds judgement. This is also an opposition to testing in general rather than just random testing. |
NoIt is still legal to have a drink and then drive – but the culture of nanny state control is increasingly meaning that self-righteous moral pundits condemn people for doing so, when in truth it should be up to the individual to judge whether they are ok to drive. People should be judged by the consequences of their actions, not by theoretical possibilities. Having random tests will only add to this. |
References:Motions:
In legislation, policy, and the real worldSee also on Debatepedia:External links and resources:
Books: |