Linthicum found that 250 to 300 people under the legal limit are arrested annually for drunk driving in New Mexico and even people sleeping it off in their cars are going to jail for DWI.

Both MADD statewide Director LoraLee Ortiz and State DWI czar Rachel O’Connor admitted their awareness that this injustice is indeed happening.

It’s become such a problem that state Sen. Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, sponsored a bill to eliminate the alternative “impaired to the slightest degree” standard from the DWI statute. That is the statute that all 50 states have on the books that allows police to arrest people for DWI who were driving under the legal limit.

DWI czar O’Connor claims that the state is reviewing all of the elements of the state’s anti-DWI campaign to find out what has worked best and what has been most cost-effective. Arresting sober drivers for drunk driving probably won’t make the cut. And unless making MADD happy is among the criteria, we doubt that New Mexico’s law requiring ignition interlocks for all offenders will be on the short list. We recently explained why in a Journal guest column.
One solution to this growing problem that Linthicum offered is that legislators could “kick up the penalties only for multiple offenders.” As we’ve been saying for years, that is the best proposal for stopping hardcore drunk drivers.

“A general alcohol limit of less than .05 may require people to abstain from drinking any alcohol on social occasions – for some people this may be only one standard drink – before driving.”

Several European countries already have set their legal limit at.02 – making criminals out of responsible drinkers. In the U.S., the average BAC of a drunk driver in a fatal crash is .19 – that’s more than double our legal limit of .08. And it’s a far cry from the moderate, responsible drinkers that are targeted by ultra-low legal limits.

New laws should go after the high-BAC and repeat-offenders that cause the vast majority of fatalities. But, you can bet that it won’t be long before anti-alcohol groups call for the U.S. to lower its legal limit. Or maybe your car will just start locking you out for having a glass of beer or wine with dinner.

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.

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.

Sarah Longwell

USA TODAY’s editorial on Dec. 28 didn’t mention that mandating ignition interlocks for all drunken-driving offenders is an incremental step toward putting alcohol sensors in all cars.

Read more…

It’s curious why state law enforcement target under-the-limit drivers when we know that it’s the high-BAC drivers who cause the vast majority of fatal crashes and are the riskiest drivers. Take a look at this chart:

In fact, the average BAC of a driver involved in a fatal crash is .19 BAC – that’s more than double the legal limit of .08 (and more than triple what Kerry’s BAC was)! Police, state legislatures, and public awareness campaigns should target this dangerous population – not sober drivers like Alexandra Kerry.

Senator John Kerry’s daughter, Alexandra Forbes Kerry, was arrested early this morning on suspicion of DUI … law enforcement sources tell TMZ.

Cops took her to the station and then conducted a formal blood alcohol test which showed a level of .06. Under California law, the legal limit is .08, but a driver can still be prosecuted — even under a .08 reading — if the vehicle is being operated unsafely due to alcohol.

Bet you didn’t know that you can be arrested for drunk driving even when you aren’t drunk. But, it’s true.

You can be arrested and convicted for drunk driving below the legal limit in all 50 states. Some states set a “presumptive intoxication” level of .04 or .05, but police in every state may arrest motorists whom they deem intoxicated – regardless of what the breathalyzer says.

“Presumptive intoxication” is one excuse car companies will use to set interlocks below the legal limit when they starting put the devices are in all cars. Learn the other reasons.

Minimum price controls should be imposed on alcohol and tougher drink-driving laws introduced, policy options circulated by the World Health Organisation (WHO) suggest…

The draft recommendations – so far not widely distributed – have been released in the run up to a formal decision by member states next year.

… On drink-driving limits, the WHO suggests that the limit on drink driving should be 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, equivalent to a concentration level of 0.05%.

Higher drink prices and an even lower legal limit? That’s something even MADD hasn’t openly called for (yet). One reason they’re probably mum is because lowering it from .1% to .08% had little – if any – effect on our safety.

The fact is that the average drunk driver involved in a fatal crash drives at about .19 BAC– more than double the legal limit. Lowering the limit to .05 won’t keep us any safer on the roads, but it will make responsible drinkers sweat over having even a single drink before driving home. (Oh, and we know that raising drink prices will not prevent alcohol abuse.)

The WHO’s campaign is one of neoprohibition – seeking to use a “public health” facade as an excuse to put a stop to responsible alcohol consumption. Raising drink prices and lowering the legal limit will serve to deter consumption – to make you second guess that first glass of wine or beer with dinner.

Contrary to MADD’s zero tolerance stance on alcohol, the fact is that drinking and driving is perfectly safe and legal in all 50 states. There is nothing wrong or dangerous about having a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ballgame, or a champagne toast at a wedding prior to driving. Drunk driving is the true problem. That’s why we have a legal limit.

In the 1980’s and early 1990’s, MADD did great work to educate Americans about the dangers of drunk driving (their efforts resulted in a large decrease in fatalities). But in recent years, MADD has become, in the words of its own founder, “very neo-prohibitionist.”

KFOX’s story was about a tragic crash caused by a man whom police say was intoxicated. He was not simply “drinking,” as Gonzalez insinuated. He was drunk.

MADD wants you to believe that any drinking – even moderate and responsible drinking – prior to driving is immoral and dangerous. That’s not the case. In fact, the average drunk driver involved in a fatal crash was driving at more that double the legal limit. If MADD got back to basics and spent more time fighting drunk driving, instead of stigmatizing drinking, maybe this crash could have been prevented.

The Marin Institute put out a press release yesterday calling for more states to adopt punitive taxes on what its deems “Big Alcohol” to help pay for the costs alcohol abuse. The truth is the folks at Marin would jump for joy if alcohol were taxed out of existence.

However, alcohol companies sell a perfectly legitimate product that is safely used around the world every day. So why should companies be held responsible through taxes for the irresponsible decisions of a few individuals?

The notion of personal responsibility quickly goes out the door once government tax policy is based on the blame game. What if Ford and Toyota were taxed to pay for car accidents caused by speeders?

The punishment needs to fit the crime—or lack thereof. In addition to all of the other problems with increasing drink taxes, making beer, wine, and spirits producers pay for something they have no direct control over just doesn’t make sense. But coming from a notoriously anti-alcohol organization, that’s par for the course.