We are continuing our discussion of ignition interlock devices. An interlock keeps a vehicle from starting if the driver's blood alcohol level exceeds a set limit. Some states, New York included, mandate the device after an offender's first conviction for driving while intoxicated; other states require repeat or chronic offenders to install them. Advocacy groups are pushing for all states to be as strict as New York.

Not everyone is as keen on the idea as Mothers Against Drunk Driving or the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Beverage Institute has serious qualms about mandates. The ABI is a restaurant trade association that, according to its website, "protects the on-premise dining experience and defends the right to drink moderately and responsibly prior to driving."

The ABI's main concern is that mandates take judges out of the DWI process. The organization argues that a human perspective is necessary to differentiate between a driver who is one sip over the legal limit and the heavy drinker.

Light drinkers metabolize alcohol differently from heavy drinkers, according to the association. There is a difference between a 120-pound woman's response to two glasses of wine with dinner and a bar fly on a binge. If the state mandates ignition interlocks at all, it should be for the drivers who are well over the limit. The ABI maintains that a judge really should be involved in cases involving drivers who are at or just over the limit.

There's also the potential for a Big Brother adoption of ignition interlocks, and that opens up a whole new can of worms.

We'll finish this up in our next post.

Source: MSNBC, "Curbing drunken drivers: Should ignition interlock be required on every car?" Jim Gold, Jan. 5, 2012