Today, the Washington Post covered ABI’s involvement in the interlock debate:
The proposed laws face fierce opposition from the American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association that supports requiring the devices for repeat offenders and those judged to be heavy drinkers but argues that a judge should be free to decide for first-time offenders just over the legal limit.
Although the ABI opposes mandating interlocks for first-time offenders, Longwell said research supports the need to require their long-term use for “hard-core” repeat offenders and those caught well over the legal limit of 0.08 blood alcohol level.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said last year that studies suggest interlocks “may be necessary as a long-term or permanent condition of driving for repeat offenders.”
Longwell, who plans to testify this week at legislative hearings in Maryland and Virginia, said initial support for first-time offender bills tends to wane after lawmakers hear the other side of the argument.
“We’re going another notch down the slippery slope,” she said. “They are going to push until there is one installed in every car and it’s set on 0.00. It’s a backdoor approach to Prohibition that will shift the entire way we socialize.”
Installing the next generation of interlocks in all cars has been discussed by advocates in interviews.
The proposed laws face fierce opposition from the American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association that supports requiring the devices for repeat offenders and those judged to be heavy drinkers but argues that a judge should be free to decide for first-time offenders just over the legal limit.
Last night, the ABC-affiliate in Palm Springs, KESQ, ran an investigative report on the effectiveness and cost of DUI checkpoints. The American Beverage Institute is interviewed in the piece:
ABI took MADD to task over its use of interlock stats from New Mexico in today’s Albuquerque Journal. We argue that interlocks are not the primary cause of New Mexico’s decline in drunk driving fatalities and that most stats coming out of the state about interlocks are inflated.
The state’s Ignition Interlock Indigent Fund has run out of money.
The New Mexico Department of Transportation has given notice that reimbursements for interlocks given to low-income drunken-driving offenders has been “suspended until further notice.
Yesterday, Randy Elder, scientific director for systematic reviews at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Community Guide Branch was quoted saying something we’ve been trying to explain to legislators about interlocks:
“They’re not a silver bullet. It does cost money to monitor them and it’s an administrative burden.”
He also explained:
“People tend to revert back to what they did before the interlock was installed. Interlocks work while they’re in the car, but they don’t have any lasting effects.”
We’ve been echoing both of these points for years. Hopefully legislators will start listening.
The Watertown Daily Times reports that New York probation officers are concerned about handling an increased caseload due to the new ignition interlock law, especially now that Gov. Paterson has proposed a probation department budget cut.
We’ve been explaining to legislators that interlock mandates are hard to enforce because probation officers need to monitor offenders to verify they’ve installed the device and are using it. Now that all offenders must get an interlock, the probation department is overwhelmed.
As Jefferson County probation director Edward E. Brown explains:
“We have really been accustomed to having more felony DWI offenders being on probation, but now including the misdemeanors [first-time offenders] will be a whole different gamut for our office.”
New York passed this law hastily, without public hearings, over the course of a few days. A little more scrutiny and attention to detail might have helped legislators craft a better law.
Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer published an ABI letter to the editor about MADD’s campaign to see interlocks in all cars:
Your editorial (“Locked for safety,” Jan. 16) didn’t mention that mandating ignition interlocks for all drunken-driving offenders is an incremental step in a project that seeks to put alcohol sensors in all cars.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is trying to subtly encourage Americans to be supportive of such in-car alcohol sensors. But once in all cars, interlocks would be set well below the legal limit.
You will no longer be able to have a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ball game, or a champagne toast at a wedding before driving home. That application of the technology isn’t anti-drunks, it’s anti-drinks.
Today, the Chicago Tribune published ABI’s letter to the editor debunking one of MADD’s worst stats:
This is in response to “Women gain on men in drunken driving arrests” (News, Jan. 1). One of Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s favorite talking points was quoted: “A first-time drunken driving offender on average has driven drunk 87 times before being arrested.” This goes so far as to accuse Americans of criminal acts with no proof to back up the claim.
Before advocating for new laws, we need an accurate, up-to-date measure of drunk driving behavior. It’s reckless to act based on one thing, when the reality is another.
– Sarah Longwell, managing director, American Beverage Institute, Washington
This just in: Interlock company Smart Start is suing North Carolina’s DMV. According to the Associated Press:
“The company filed a lawsuit Friday at North Carolina’s Office of Administrative Hearings, accusing the Division of Motor Vehicles of unfairly blocking its attempts to win the state’s contract for the devices.”
The North Carolina interlock market is worth about $10 million a year. No wonder Smart Start wants in. And if legislators expand the use of interlocks to more offenders, those profits could triple. Gee, maybe that’s why Smart Start lobbies for increased use of interlocks.
After the California legislature soundly rejected a nickel-per-drink alcohol tax increase last year and the Assembly Health Committee twice voted down a dime-per-drink tax hike “fee,” you would think that the anti-alcohol legislators introducing these proposals would get the message. Not so for Assemblyman Jim Beall (D-San Jose).
Despite his best efforts – and coordination with the notoriously anti-alcohol Marin Institute – Beall’s 10-cents-per-drink tax increase “fee,” failed for a second time in committee yesterday. But, the eager Assemblyman says he’ll be back soon with another tax hike proposal:
“I’m going to wipe it off and come back in a few weeks with something different.”
Not only is right now a terrible time to raise taxes as Americans struggle with financial concerns and unemployment, but alcohol tax increases always hurt businesses, negatively impact the poorest among us, and kill jobs in the hospitality industry.
The hospitality industry isn’t alone in opposition toward the alcohol “fee.” Check out this video we came across of some pretty angry college students confronting Beall:
Our advice to Beall: Realize that California doesn’t want an alcohol “fee,” tax increase, or whatever else you call it. Don’t come back in a few weeks with the something cut from the same cloth.
