A new law that went into effect January 1 will make it easier for people convicted of driving drunk, including repeat offenders, to get their licenses back. The law was sponsored by state Rep. Roger Goodman (D-45, Kirkland), a longtime advocate of drug-policy reform. The law allows motorists arrested for drunken driving to apply for a special license that will allow them to drive if they install an ignition-interlock device that tests blood-alcohol content. The device must stay in a driver's car between one year (for first time offenders) to ten (for anyone convicted of three or more DUIs).

Doesn't that imply that the right to drive is inviolable—even at the risk of the safety of others on the road? Goodman, reached in his car on New Year's Eve, says no. He says the reason he wants to restore DUI offenders' driving rights is because people with suspended licenses often drive anyway. Better that they do it with a valid license and an interlock device, he argues, than do so with no license and no device.

"Locking them up, fining them, suspending their license does very little at all" to keep DUI offenders off the road, Goodman says. For the most part, "These are law-abiding people who have made a bad judgment call about having too many glasses of wine. These are people who are embarrassed and want to avoid the stigma and they will comply."

But surely, I said, Goodman must be as aware that some people will cheat the device by getting a sober friend to blow into it. Goodman acknowledges that concern, but says the new generation of ignition interlock devices require drivers to blow into the device periodically while driving, making them tough, though not impossible, to cheat. (If a driver blows over a certain blood-alcohol level, the horn starts blaring and the lights start flashing—safer than having the car shut down, though arguably a dangerous distraction if you're driving drunk). "The technology's going to keep getting better," Goodman says—already, devices exist that test blood-alcohol content through a driver's skin, making them less obtrusive (and embarrassing) than devices you have to blow into.

Fundamentally, Goodman says he sees his new law as a harm-reduction approach—meeting people where they're at (driving with suspended licenses) instead of where we wish they'd be (not driving at all). He compares it to reducing penalties for small-time drug offenders instead of throwing them in jail. "We've been locking them up, and they just get out and drive drunk again. Let's just get real and acknowledge what people are doing out there. If someone says, 'so much for getting tough on drunk driving,' my response is, let's get smart about it."

As for whether the state should ever say enough is enough, Goodman says, "Frankly, I don't think that even if you're convicted of vehicular homicide that you should be ineligible" for a license. However, "I believe if you have three DUIs you should have the device on your car forever."

Is a permanent ignition-interlock device enough punishment for killing someone with your car while drunk? I don't think so. There's a difference between victimless drug crimes and vehicular homicide—and there's a point at which we ought to lock drunk drivers up for a good long while. We wouldn't keep giving someone a gun license if they got drunk and shot someone, and we shouldn't keep giving someone a license to drive if they get drunk, get behind the wheel, and kill someone with their car. On the other hand, MADD strongly supports laws that mandate ignition devices, so maybe Goodman's law is a good first step... but it shouldn't be the only step. recommended