1. Interlocks are profit‑driven and disproportionately hurt low‑income people
"These interlocks can exceed $100/month for some of the poorest people in society." — Someone1234
The discussion repeatedly frames mandatory breathalyzer interlocks as a revenue stream for private firms, with little regard for the financial strain on those already marginalized.
2. Plea deals can impose punishments the courts themselves cannot levy
"Plea deals" have an interesting caveat that I didn't know - you can agree to punishments that the government couldn't impose as part of a plea deal." — bombcar
This highlights how defendants may effectively consent to rights‑infringing conditions—such as forfeiting constitutional protections—simply to avoid harsher sentences.
3. Mandatory interlocks are ineffective and create safety concerns
"Well, one could remove their licenses instead, however the US is built around the car, and not being able to use one almost becomes a social credit, in that you can not function in the country without a car." — calgoo
The consensus is that taking away a driver’s license does little to deter drunk driving, while forcing interlock installation raises practical and safety issues for everyone on the road.