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.
Read the full article here.
