DISCUS and Partners Launch Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving

Dr. Peter H. Cressey, president and CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), recently announced that DISCUS, along with The Century Council, have joined with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Automobile Alliance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the Governor's Highway Safety Association, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and others in national Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving.

The campaign will be composed of the following initiatives: enforcement, technology, education and public communication. The participants share the common objective of eliminating drunk driving, however, it is understood that each participant will pursue these initiatives according to their own policies and procedures, Cressy said.
"We don't need drunk drivers as our customers," Cressy said. "DISCUS and its member companies believe that it's extremely important for our industry to take an active part in any legitimate effort to get rid of drunk driving on our nation's highways.

"The objective of eliminating drunk driving is what unifies us, but we have differences on how best to pursue this elimination," Cressy said. "For instance, we are very strong on (targeting) the hardcore drunk driver. We describe a hardcore drunk driver as any repeat offender. So, if you are on your second conviction at 0.08 or above, we consider you a hardcore drunk driver. We also consider anybody who is convicted the first time of 0.15 or higher as a hardcore drunk driver. That level is terribly dangerous. It demonstrates a wanton disregard for the safety of others."
DISCUS disagrees with the imposition of mandatory use of interlocks in call cases in which a person is found guilty of a drinking and driving offense.

"Regarding hardcore drunk drivers, we approve of the use of interlocks," Cressy said. "We don't support the mandatory use of interlocks for first-time offenders who are not high BAC. If someone comes in at 0.09 the first time, we do not favor the mandatory use of interlocks for such an individual.

"We certainly, under all circumstances, are in favor of judicial discretion. We think judges play a very important role in how to handle things, and a judge might decide on a first-time offense that it's better to put an interlock on someone than it is to send them to jail for three months. They want them to still be able to support their family. Sometimes judges will agree to a daytime license for the purposes of commuting to and from work. If a part of that is the use of an interlock, we think judges should have that discretion."

For more information, visit www.discus.org.