Industry Group: End Sobriety Checkpoints

(CBS)  Americans need to be careful on the roads this holiday weekend. Alcohol often flows freely at Thanksgiving weekend events and that puts drivers at risk - not of being in an accident involving a drunk driver, but of being inconvenienced by those pesky sobriety checkpoints.

That's the message coming from, yes, the American Beverage Institute, a large restaurant and alcohol producer industry group managed by a Washington lobbying firm.

"Statistics show that the average drunk driver in a fatal car crash was driving at a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit. Rather than targeting this dangerous population, sobriety checkpoints inconvenience all driving adults," reads an ABI press release urging law enforcement agencies to forgo the checkpoints.

The release argues that very few of the people who pass through checkpoints are actually arrested for being drunk - just 1 percent in California in 2008. It doesn't address the fact that the existence of the checkpoints might discourage drunk driving, leading to that desirable result or that research shows that sobriety checkpoints are indeed effective at reducing drunk driving, which kills about 15,000 people a year.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving also notes that:

-Research shows that those convicted of drunk driving for the first time have driven drunk more than 87 times before their first arrest, thus checkpoints are crucial for the prevention of drunk driving and in turn, for saving more lives; and

-Checkpoints have been shown to not only detect impaired drivers, but also drivers with suspended licenses, illegal weapons, stolen vehicles and numerous other violations.

The ABI advocates for roving patrols (presumably the same patrols that take place every day) to combat impaired driving - saying they are more effective - but does not note that checkpoints are conducted in addition to, and not instead of, such patrols.

[cvanoff]

Are you kidding??!!! If it means having one less drunk driver in my path, I have nooooo problem being "inconvenienced"!

[PopsH]

It is a lot more inconvenient if you are injured by some drunk who has not been removed at a road block.

[endurorob_5]

Those security checks at airports are an inconvenience also. Should we get rid of those?

[cvanoff]

excellent point!

[r9119111]

For some people, once they take one drink, they are incapable of stopping until they are stupified. Would those who are inconvenienced rather meet one of them in a head-on collision? Would they rather get slaughtered while crossing a street? Just what protection will these people have against abusive drinking?

Heavy drinkers of this type should be taken off the road immediately and kept in jail until they agree to and complete a month in rehabilitation the first time.

[nextgenman09]

I think you should apply that same il-logic to gun owners.

[joelwisch]

I adamently support the check stops. May anyone who doesn't wind up with an 18 wheeler on top of his auto roof.

[chelokee]

It is illegal to drink and drive, but there is a bar on every corner in this country-DUH! The percentage of people that actually have D.D.'s when they go out drinking is quite low according to statistics. Get rid of bar's and you solve alot of the problem of drinking and driving, DUH!

[nextgenman09]

Maybe we could bring back Prohibition. Sheesh.

[Canuck42]

Pass a law making the lobbyists totally responsible for all the accidents and deaths and charge them accordingly. All these people care about is the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[burneb]

The ABI's only sincere concern is that checkpoints inconvenience their members that sell alcoholic drinks.

[SusanStoHelit]

When the drunks voluntarily turn themselves in, checkpoints won't have to stop all drivers.

Until then - checkpoints are a very good way to not only catch drunk drivers, but also to remind all drivers that if you drive drunk, you can be caught. No matter how much the booze tells you you are driving fine, you can still be caught.

[wheatfield2]

This is America, Big Brother