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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Give the piece a read here.

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.

As we’ve been saying, interlock laws are not budget-neutral. Not only do states have to think about indigent funds, they have to pour millions into enforcement.

Cost is just one reason why interlock mandates should target hardcore drunk drivers, instead of low-BAC (blood alcohol concentration), first-time offenders.

“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.”

Interlock requirements are also expensive. Based on conservative estimates from the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), the interlock mandate will cost New York over $19 million per year to enforce.

This is just one reason why interlock mandates should target hardcore offenders – those with high-BACs (blood alcohol concentrations) and/or repeat offenses, instead of marginal, first-timers.

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.

Sarah Longwell

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

Learn the truth about other bad stats here.