Chicago DUI lawyer is mad about the special interest group MADD 's latest efforts to take away your rights

Let's face it. We are in dire economic times right now. Our Congress is doing what it can to come up with the best use of our tax dollars to ease the economic hurt felt across the country. That means bills and proposals are down and dirty. There isn't a lot of time to parse all of them if the front page basis of the bill is to get help to folks yesterday.

Now is not the time to let MADD, and other special interest groups, take advantage of Congress. I suspect it was the old bait-and-switch. We need to get this bill passed last week and buried in fine print on page 227 is this tidbit to erode your right to have a beer at the cookout and then drive home. I've already posted here about the MADD march to prohibiting alcohol consumption.

July 2, Tampa, FL

Last week the U.S. House Transportation Committee unveiled the details of its six-year, $450 billion overhaul known as the Highway Bill. Buried in the blueprints, not surprisingly, are some generous handouts for special interests.

One such favor is a provision that would require a controversial sentencing requirement for low-level, first-time DUI offenders: ignition interlocks. These in-car breathalyzers prevent a vehicle from starting if its driver's breath registers above a pre-set blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) limit. Because they are so expensive, intrusive and prone to technical failures, this penalty has typically been reserved for the most extreme DUI offenders.

But there's a reason this unusual clause made its way into the new highway bill. If it passes as currently written, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) will be one step closer to its goal of prohibiting responsible adults from having a glass of wine with dinner before driving home.

The hospitality industry has already been working with traffic safety advocates to require these devices for repeat offenders caught with high blood-alcohol concentrations. We've succeeded in 27 states. But under the new transportation bill, those states will be penalized if they do not amend their laws to also include first-time, low-BAC offenders - even those just one sip over the legal limit.

Unlike the debate over BAC limits, the vast majority of states have already chosen to forgo ignition interlock mandates for low-BAC, first-time DUI offenders. The fact that the House Transportation Committee may give MADD its wish anyway is a troubling sign of the power of special interests over states' rights.

But here's what's also troubling: In 2006, MADD projected a 10-year timeline to develop ignition interlock technology as "standard equipment" for every vehicle in America (set at levels as low as 0.02 and 0.03). Three years later, we are already on the verge of requiring one for every person caught one sip over the legal limit.

No one believes drunk driving is right. Can we all agree that one beer or glass of wine is not going to make folks drunk?