Finally, somebody gets it.

I don't know Martin B. Hamilton, but I sure do like the way he thinks. Mr. Hamilton advocated for universal ignition interlocks in a recent editorial in the Johnstown Breeze. Even better, he has picked just the right time to make this argument. Why not, he asks, tie the bailout of the automakers to a requirement that every new car come with an ignition interlock? This is brilliant, but of course our elected representatives will probably fail to implement this obvious solution to the problem of drunk driving.

Hamilton's argument is simple. "At the inconvenience of including people who don’t drink at all, these devices would ensure no one drives drunk. It would make society suffer for the sins of a few, but the added cost would surely offset the amount of lives saved." And how much would it cost? Well, not a whole lot. These devices could easily be manufactured for less than $50 if they were produced on a tremendous scale that the US auto industry offers. And yes, it would require that we breathe into the machine before turning the key. But we have to breathe anyway! So why not save lives and money while doing what we have to do to keep our hearts beating?

Clue: some people would lose money. Auto manufacturers would sell less cars because people wouldn't wreck their vehicles while driving drunk. Insurance companies would derive less revenue because there would be less risk to insure. The goverment would sell less alcohol and get less tax and sales revenue, not to mention the fines from drunk driving convictions. The police would have less work to do and their employment numbers would decrease. MADD would go out of business and their fat salaries would be history. So think about it and decide for yourself - should we save lives or help Jack Daniels and his friends make more money?