as an attorney who represents those injured by drunk drivers I see the devastation that all sorts of impaired driving can cause (cell phones are right up there!)..putting aside major catastrophic injuries (which are relatively rare) even moderate injury accidents can cause significant financial issues.. health insurance doesn't cover everything and some policies really provide no coverage to car accidents (they pay the bills but you have to pay them back)... missing work can lead to not only lost income but job loss, with the cascading effect of losing other work related benefits (health, life and disability insurance.)

So I come down on the side of "if you make a conscious decision to get into a car after you have been drinking, and you get caught 'over the limit' then you need to pay the price-including that ignition lock device.)

Life is all about choices... your choice to drink (any amount) and drive carries with it the risk of injury to others..

My personal opinion is everyone should be allowed one mistake. So this does seem drastic to me for a first offence, in instances that do not involve injury or property damage.

"Life is all about choices... your choice to drink (any amount) and drive carries with it the risk of injury to others.."

The degree of punishment is supposed to be directly related to risk and probability of injury. So deducing relative risks from VA law: driving while talking on a cell phone, texting, fiddling with GPS, sleep deprived, taking cold medicine, speeding = low risk. Driving after as little as two glasses of wine (and otherwise breaking no laws and causing no injury) = high risk. Gotcha. Ambulance chasing injury lawyers love Draconion laws like this. Ignition lock companies too.

How about "2 sips" over the line ?. . how about "3". You've gotta draw a line at some point. I thought the legal,acceptable BAC was the line . .

The devastation that alcohol causes has already gone too far . . economically, emotionally, socially. When does our culture begin to accept that one must be "accountable" for their actions. This "entitlement" culture continues to pervade society too much already. Enough is Enough.

Might possibly be a little excessive...though I think the notion that those slightly over the limit are receiving the same punishment as those significantly over is probably wrong. My guess is the actual penalty for the latter is harsher in other ways.

But really, with all the stupid, unconstitutional laws the Assembly passed this year, this is but a blip on the radar!!!

FTA: “A 120 pound woman can reach the 0.08% BAC level by having two glasses of wine in two hours," the association's managing director, Sarah Longwell, stated in the news release. "Should she receive the same punishment as someone with a 0.19% BAC level or multiple offenses?"

My response: HELL YES.

We want people to NOT drive after drinking, we're not punishing people on a sliding scale for being "Not as drunk as some other person, but still drunk."

It is my understanding that the convicted person has to pay for the installation of the Interlock, so I'm not sure where the cost to the state is coming from, I haven't researched that. Does the state of Virginia post or release costs incurred from enforcing current laws?
If the law in Virginia says that you are impaired when driving with a BAC no less than .08, then it makes sense that you are punished for that, and then with stiffer penalties for repeat offenses and NOT with stiffer penalties for level of drunkenness.
That said, I'm interested in knowing if Interlock is the sole vendor of this device and would be making major profits, or if it is merely the term for the device type; I just don't have time to look all of this stuff up!
Something I also don't have time for? People that whine that they can't have a beer with dinner.

Have you ever heard of a designated driver? Truth is something does have to change and we won't like whatever it is. The rights of a person to be safe out weighs that of the rights to drink in my opinion. BTW, I do like to have a drink or two, sometimes more. But when I do I put myself in a position to do so resposibly. I agree with tougher laws on 1st time offenders.

A person who has already been convicted of DUI has by that conviction demonstrated the need for additional measures to protect themselves and others from potential devastation. The state legislators and the governor have acted responsibly.

Why not just make it standard equipment? After all, a never offender doesn't become a first offender until they're caught. That first offense might just be the offense when they injure somebody. So, why not require everybody to pass the test before allowing them to start the car?

The issue is not drunk driving. I think it goes without saying (or should go without saying) that getting drunk and driving is bad. Duh. But now we've got a bunch of temperance do-gooders over-emoting that drivers who drink even a miniscule amount should receive the harshest penalties. I think the punishment should fit the potential risk to society. Therefore, I propose that all driving impairment crimes should be lumped together into one broad category. So under this new law, impairment includes: drunk driving, stop sign running, any speeding that's over 25% over the limit (that includes doing 31 in a 25), talking on a cell phone (hands free included), texting, driving while tired, sick, upset or medicated (cold meds included), aggressive lane changes, and tailgating. All of these things are equal or more likely to cause injury than having two drinks. To the temperance do-gooders: you *ever* do any of these dangerous things? Just as I thought. Then you're an equal or worse menace and should be lumped in with the drunk drivers and should have the book thrown at you.

This is another case of a growth industry lobby with a agenda to force as many devices as possible. No devices on every car. No devices unless one has been convicted of DUI. Where is the test of the devices to see if they can recognize the difference between onion breath and alcohol over a period of time.

Just so readers are kept informed, Sarah Longwell, the “managing director of the American Beverage Institute," actually works for Berman and Company, a Washington, D.C. based company whose clients all have one thing in common – they don’t want anybody keeping them from making as much money as possible, no matter the consequences. There are at least 15 “associations” there, with fewer than 20 staffers trading titles. Sarah is listed with various titles in at least ten of Berman’s front groups. Some of the associations they have made up include ones lobbying for fewer restrictions on mercury tainted fish, smoking in public places, lowering the minimum wage, promoting high fructose corn syrup, tanning salons, obesity and, of course, pro drunk driving.

Saying that repeat, hard core drinkers cause the majority of DUI crashes is just plain untrue. Claiming that anti-DUI tactics will force people to stop having a single drink are false. Claims of patrols being more effective at saving lives than checkpoints fly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Admonitions that MADD and other groups are teetotalers bringing back prohibition are ludicrous and unsubstantiated. What Berman and Company, and the bar owners funding of the American Beverage Institute, are really after is keeping people buying as much booze as possible in their establishments, keeping their profits up, and figuring that enough will make it home safely to come back again for more.

I say anything that will get the drunk drivers off the road is worth a try, at least. The news media keeps tabs on how many troops are killed or injured and announces it everyday. I love our military but remember it is an all volunteer military they signed on the dotted line. More people die in a single year than total troops have died since the US has been involved in the middle-east. Yet I never hear how many people were killed by drunk drivers, daily, on the news. I never see news stories of the struggles the families of those that lost a loved one by a drunk driver. There is never a documentary about how a person that lost their legs in an accident caused by a drunk driver. We march to get our troops out of war, why don't we march to get drunk drivers off the road. Drunk drivers cause more deaths then war yet we continue to let them get away with it. Those that were killed by a drunk driver did not volunteer.

This is just another stupid idea from radical right winger Bob McDonnell. McDonnell, a devotee of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson has launched an agenda to impose his own opinions and beliefs on the rest of America. I believe he once stated that he wanted alcohol outlawed!!

In any case, I'm not a pro-drunk driver advocate (who is?) but this is yet another STUPID law conceived by stupid people. Taking sonagrams of fetuses isn't going to stop an abortion and putting breath-a-lizers into cars isn't going to stop drunk driving.

How long will it take before your typcial 18-21 year old is going to figure out how to circumvent this device? 10 minutes? Get a buddy to breath in it? Take a bag of warm air an collapse it over the device?

This is another "You're going to behave as I see fit" law brought to you by the governor that will a) be ineffective, and b) cost tax payers money. Incredible how the Republicans seem to have launched a spending program dedicated to furthering their own agenda by imposing INEFFECTIVE solutions AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

You want to stop drunk driving? Put them in jail...but that makes sense.

Joe Bagadonuts, of course the problem is wider than just drunk drivers. But the fact remains that drunks drivers, as a category, cause more deaths and injuries than any other categor, about one third the total. Of course, everything needs to be addressed, but that doesn't dismiss drunk driving from being problem number one.

"But the fact remains that drunks drivers, as a category, cause more deaths and injuries than any other categor, about one third the total."

Major correction to this misleading statement: by official estimates, about 1/3 of highway deaths are RELATED to alcohol. Not CAUSED. So about 10,000 deaths per year are related - that means every single fatal wreck where a trace of alcohol was present is counted as related. So: guy texting on a windy road who had a lite beer two hours prior = related. The actual number of fatal crashes where alcohol was a determining factor is a much smaller number. Drunk driving deaths (the actual causal number) is a far smaller problem it's portrayed to be by the MADD crowd. Again - for those who don't read carefully - I'm not saying that drunk driving is not a problem. I'm saying that it's a far smaller problem than you all think it is. And more Draconian laws are not the answer.

Also, about the disproportional outrage: Two beers and driving? I'm outraged! Texting and driving? I wish you wouldn't do that.

The statistic that jumped out at me: 51% of fatalities were not wearing seat belts. I've been wearing a setbelt so long, I can't even comprehend anyone not wearing one.

Uncle Smartypants: If only Benjamin Franklin had actually said that...unfortunately a very popular urban legend! His actual quote: "Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy."

Imagine that. The restaurant trade association speaking up against this. In other words, the bars.

We might as well ban all alcohol being sold in public establishments. Nazism is alive and well in VA. Try these cases on the facts, .08 in a checkpoint isn't the same as a .19 driving erractically. Let me try these cases I will make a ton suing the state!

@ David Raines, driving home the fact that 79% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Plus if you have all of those symptoms at .07 (what, about 2-3 lite beers?) you're a complete dink and you really shouldn't drink at all, driving or not.

drink and drive? first second ,,dosen't matter they are killers ..

Hmmm ... speaking of going too far ...

I totally support such a law! Sorry, but if you have to drink, dont drive. What gives you the right to drive drunk? Killing innocent people? I have had two family members killed by drunk drivers. Do you have to lose a family member for you to realize you shouldnt drive drunk?

First of all, when you are making a statement, don't start or finish it by saying, "Sorry." You erase your point. If you are sorry for what you are saying, who is supposed to take it seriously? The punishment should fit the crime. It is ridiculous to have a breatholyzer in every single car. Also, if a person drives drunk and runs a red light, the punishment should not be the same for a person who drive drunk and kills someone. These DUI punishments should be on a scale. This new law is from Bob McDonnell, who wanted to sneak in a new law to invade women's bodies. He didn't win with that, he won't win with this. The only people who will win are ignition lock companies and dui lawyers.

I wish they'd pass (or enforce) a law regarding noise pollution from "neighboring" vehicles. I was stopped at a red light a Manassas Dr. & 28 next to car/truck "mash-up" and I could barely hear the siren of the oncoming ambulance for the bass in this guy's car. HIS bass was causing my mirrors to vibrate. I'm not some crotchety old grump. I've had a "2nd career" as a session drummer for the last 28 years. I'm used to loud noise. If I hadn't glanced in my rearview, I wouldn't have seen the ambulance barreling down behind me and I know the idiot in the car didn't hear it because he just sat there until the flashing red lights happened to catch his eye, once he looked up from his texting...
My wife gets migraines and sometimes I have to take her to the hospital. If she'd been in the car with me when that guy rolled up with that bass pounding, I'm not sure I could've kept her in the car. I love loud music too, but that crap is nothing short of an "aural" assault.

Our lives are becoming totally controlled by punitive puritan prohibitionists who are out to progressively criminalize human behavior. Their next step will be to make driving with any detectable amount of alcohol DUI. How many accidents are caused by the sorry state of Arlington's streets and roads? Can't do anything about that. Gotta go after those 'drunk' drivers.

I live in Va. and i agree with the new law my son was killed 7 years ago at the age of 20 by drunk driver who only got 3 months in jail and he gets to be with his family thru holidays and everyday. i have 2 girls that have went thru alot from his death.they need to have harsher laws then what they have now even for first offence drivers.

Follow the money friends. Dui arrest are included as part of city and state budgets. They are easy to get a conviction on. Most car accident deaths are due to bad and sober mishandling of the automobile. Distracted drivers cause more accidents than anyone according to All state, city and federal stats

DUI laws are going too far. What happened to 'you are innocent until proven guilty'.

Ok - im a 50 year old ex-navy pilot and ex-minister and i could have 2 glasses of wine for dinner, blow a .08, and drive circles around Jeff Gordon after doing so...AND most definitely drive circles around most sober 70 year olds out there driving 5 miles under the speed limit on I-95 (lol). The problem with the new law is that it takes ALL and ANY objective reasoning by the judges completely out of the picture. For example, if i'm a social drinker who goes out during the holidays and has two glasses of wine, and whilst driving home is pulled over by one of our local counties finest predatory revenue generators (a policeman) who is out there crusing around pulling everyone over for touching the white line or not using a turn signal, i'm automatically labled a CRIMINAL and forced to submit to urine samples for 6 months...what's wrong with this picture? I've decided to continue to drink and drive, and hopefully get caught so that i can sue the shit out of our draconian general assembly.