[Klathmon]

I feel like we have the technology to prevent a car from starting if the driver is significantly impared, but "solving" addiction, cancer, and heart disease are much harder problems.

Obviously it would need to be implemented carefully, but I personally would be more than fine blowing into a tube to start my car if it meant saving 12k lives a year with a very low false positive rate.

That being said I know it would never be implemented in a sane way in the US, and you would probably have situations like your car insurance automatically increasing due to a faulty sensor, so I'm ultimately against it unless a lot of other stuff changes.

But it's still much more possible than "preventing drug addiction"

[mattrighetti]

> Obviously it would need to be implemented carefully, but I personally would be more than fine blowing into a tube to start my car if it meant saving 12k lives a year with a very low false positive rate.

I can already see two issues with these devices:

- They can’t reliably identify the actual driver. Criminals might simply ask someone else to blow into the device.

- With every car equipped with this safety feature, people might assume everyone driving isn’t drunk.

I’m not sure. It seems like this will only add extra hassle for law-abiding citizens while those for whom it was designed will likely find workarounds.

[zeratax]

i think of those 12k only a tiny minority would go that far. like at the point you are involving other people, why not just ask them to drive you home? like yea people will always find workarounds, but a solution doesnt have to be perfect to be effective.