Anchorage Daily News Compass Piece. . . « Ignition Interlock 4 Alaska

Anchorage Daily News Compass Piece. . .

April 9, 2008 at 5:23 pm | In Alaska, DUI legislation, drunk driving, ignition interlock | 1 Comment

Dunno if you caught this editorial last week written by the managing director of the American Beverage Institute in Washington D.C. Sarah Longwell writes,

“A couple of drafts at a ball game, a glass of wine at an anniversary dinner, a wedding toast or two: Moderate drinking — not enough to render you “impaired,” let alone drunk — may soon be all it takes for drivers in Alaska to be charged with drunken driving and saddled with an interlock in their car.”

It seems to me that her argument really is with the .08 BAC level, NOT with the ignition interlock requirement. The proposed language of HB19 does not suggest that an individual is required to use an interlock after a wedding toast or two, but rather, after they have been convicted of driving under the influence — two very different things. If that toast renders an individual legally impaired, then, YES, they should be required to use an ignition interlock! If, however, the American Beverage Institute has deemed that there is no impairment with a BAC of .08, then they should spend their lobbying dollars on that issue!

She continues to contend that,

“… there’s a big difference between a person driving after two drinks and a drunk who drives after 10. Proposed legislation would force Alaska judges to ignore that difference. They would have to punish drivers charged with driving just a sip over the limit with the same sentence given hard-core offenders: ignition interlocks.”

She seems to have missed the fact that time period for which a convicted DUI offender would be required to use an ignition interlock is determined by the number of previous offenses. In other words, a first time offender would be required to use the device for 12 months, a second time offender, 24 months etc. Additionally, there already exists, in state law, a sanction for those convicted of a high BAC. [AS 28.35.030 (r) (1-2)]

If the American Beverage Institute is most concerned about more conservative drinking patterns of their customers and its financial impact due to increased sanctions for those convicted of DUI, might they not be better served to provide exit-door, personal breathalyzers at their establishments? That way, folks can drink to the max without going over!

The caveat in this discussion? Every hardcore drinker was once a first-time offender!

1 Comment »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

OK – so there is already a provision for folks to get a limited license after a DUI conviction. The provision at this time, however, is to limit WHERE they can drive. The new Bill would actually allow them to drive anywhere, as long as they had an Ignition Interlock on their car and their Blood Alcohol Count (BAC) was under the pre-set level. Dang…I would think that would make those folks who have just made that one, stupid mistake happy.

Of course, practicing alcoholics would be pissed…

And speaking of that, let’s take a look at the Compass piece written by Sarah Longwell, “the managing director of the American Beverage Institute in Washington, D.C., an association of restaurants committed to the responsible serving of adult beverages”:

Alaska fines a driver speeding 5 mph over the limit $40. A driver caught speeding 20 mph over can owe more than $240.

The rest of the state’s traffic offenses follow the same theme: The severity of the crime determines the severity of the punishment. But a bill before the state Legislature aims to change that.

As with speeders, there’s a big difference between a person driving after two drinks and a drunk who drives after 10. However, proposed legislation would force Alaska judges to ignore that difference.

NO. Alaska already has graduated punishments depending on the number of previous violations and the severity of the present one. These adjusted punishments are reflected in AS 28.35.030 which HB19 refers to. HB19 merely adds the TEMPORARY Ignition Interlock requirement on to those punishments.

Comment by ignition cylinder — August 13, 2008 #

Reply