Hey guys,
Forgive me for possibly being the last to know… but last Thursday members of Pilgrim’s SADD program took first place in MADDRI’s annual Mocktail Event.
The event included 24 high schools from around the state coming together to raise awareness about safety during prom and graduation season… clearly the most dangerous time of year for teens to be involved in drinking and driving.’
I look forward to trying the winning Mocktail at APE this year! And I look forward to a safe prom and graduation season as well.
Congratulations to all those involved in the SADD program, including Ms Ferrara.
SADD’s MockTail event comes on the heels of the introduction of a bill in the Rhode Island legislature aimed at eliminating drunk-driving checkpoints. The checkpoints can be set up by police in order to test the sobriety levels of any driver traveling through that particular area. Cranston Representative Charlene Lima wants to ban the checkpoints saying they are unfair and reek of a police state. She believes that sober drivers shouldn’t have to prove to police that they are not driving under the influence and that police should need probable cause to pull any over any vehicle.
I can see her point, yet personally I’m willing to be inconvenienced a little to ensure the roads are safe…
What do you think?
- X
I think they shouldnt have those checkpoint things. Poilice should just be out on the road observing cars that drive by. They dont have to stop like every car because theyre at a "checkpoint." Its a waste of time. Police should know if the person is drunk or not by the way they are driving. They dont have to stop people randomly to see if theyre drunk or not. I think policie should be parked on the side of the road observing cars as they drive by. There shouldnt be a "checkpoint" thing.
ReplyDeleteI think that the amount of people who are killed every year goes to show how necessary things like these are. If a cop stopping you on the way home is inconvenient for you, then I'm willing to bet that death would be like, SUPER inconvenient. I think that is a fair price to pay to keep inebriated drivers off the road. I am not in favor of this bill being passed. I just realized that I am old enough and when the time comes I can actually legally have a say on the things I feel passionately about...hooray for voting!!
ReplyDeletePersonally, I wouldn't mind having to go through these checkpoints if it means keeping drunk drivers off the roads. But the 4th amendment also comes into play here. They shouldn't just pull everybody over because some people decide to get drunk. They don't have probable cause like it says above. What is the point of having amendments if we are not going to follow them?!?!?!?!?
ReplyDeleteI think that the police should do these checkpoints. With out the police taking action you will have idiots on the road driving drunk. There are people on the road with little children on the road with their family. Personally i would stop an extra 3 minutes and have the cops stop there person who is drunk out of their mind. I think it is a great idea we need to put a stop to drunk driving.
ReplyDeleteSome people can be over the legal limit and still be driving somewhat normally. How long does it take to pull over and say the alphabet backwards? I say that it's worth it, to save lives. As for the 4th Amendment, wouldn't that also come into play with the airport security? Not everyone may like it, but no one really minds, because they know that it's to ensure everyone's safety. No one's citing violation of the 4th Amendment, because everyone knows how serious it is. Isn't this the same thing? It's not like the police are picking and choosing who they pull over. "Oh, I don't like his car, so let's pull him over". No. I don't think so. That would be a police state. Both security measures are to ensure that lives are saved. Both are inconvenient, but are necessary evils. What's the difference between them? Does flying in an airplane make everything more dangerous? The odds of dying in a car accident are exponentially higher than those of dying in a plane accident. So why are measures to prevent some of those fatalities being opposed?
ReplyDelete