California's Proposed Breathalyzer Bill Fails to Target Source of DUI Problem
On September 18, the American Beverage Institute (ABI) denounced the effectiveness of the proposed ignition interlock bill, California AB2784, which would mandate the installation of breathalyzers in the cars of all first time DUI offenders. The ABI argued that AB2784 does not target the right people in the fight against driving under the influence. ABI spokeswoman Sarah Longwell spoke out against the bill, arguing that "By mandating breathalyzers for first time offenders who may have had as little as two glasses of wine, this bill ignores the root cause of today's drunk driving problem-hard core alcohol abusers".
Assembly member Mike Feuer, a democrat from Los Angeles, introduced AB2784 back in February 2008. The law would require the installation of alcohol ignition interlocks in the vehicles of all individuals convicted of driving under the influence, including individuals with low blood alcohol concentrations and first time DUI offenders.
For a first time offender, the ignition interlock device would be installed in the offender's car for a period of five months. Two-time repeat offenders would be required to use the device for twelve months, three-time offenders would be required to utilize the device for twenty four months, and all other subsequent offenses would require a thirty six month installation. The cost of installation and removal of the ignition interlock system would not be covered by the courts or law enforcement agencies. Instead, the costs associated with the ignition interlock system would be considered the DUI offender's responsibility.
Proponents of the bill (most notably Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)) claim the measure will fight the drunk driving problem and severely cut back on the number of individuals who drink and drive. However, statistics provided by ABI have proven that the drunk driving problem can be reduced to a select number of repeat offenders who severely abuse alcohol and who choose to continue to drive.
According to ABI, the biggest problem with AB2784 is that it does not discriminate between "levels of intoxication". During testimony before the California State Assembly, ABI claimed that AB2784 effectively denies judicial discretion and ignores proportional response. ABI spokeswoman Longwell spoke out against the fact that an individual with a very low blood alcohol concentration could potentially be punished to the same degree as an individual who, at the time of their DUI arrest, had a blood alcohol concentration double the legal limit. In support of ABI's assertion, Longwell has stated, "A one hundred and twenty pound woman can reach the 0.08% BAC level by having two glasses of wine over two hours. Should she receive the same punishment as someone with a 0.19% BAC level or multiple offenses?"
As a substitute for provisions in AB2784 targeted towards first time, low blood alcohol concentration (BAC) offenders, ABI has voiced their support for targeting high BAC motorists and repeat DUI offenders.
Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers
