One of the newest advancements in DUI legislation is sparking a major controversy among lobbyists and lawmakers. The Ignition Interlock Device (IID) is a miniature breathalyzer mounted to the dashboard of a car and hooked up to the engine. Before driving, an offender must breathe into the device so that it can gauge a BAC (blood alcohol content) reading. If the driver is within legal limits, the device allows the engine to turn over and start the car. However, if the driver does not pass the test, the car will not start. Once the car starts and it is on the road, the driver must periodically breathe into the machine again. If the BAC is an illegal level, the car will start flashing or honking until the ignition is turned off. This ensures that the driver does not fool the device by having a sober friend blow into the machine before he or she drives away, as well as that the driver is not drinking while driving.

There has been agitated debate about this issue since its inception. Although some claim it is the answer to DUI issues, many experts point out that the device is faulty but relied on to a dangerous extent. Some states have instituted laws that force first time DUI offenders to install the ignition interlock into their cars, and in many cases a violation of the test will produce harsh consequences. Lawmakers seem to be putting high stakes into a machine that is neither 100% accurate or reliable, at the expense of the peoples' lives it can potentially destroy.

The ignition interlock device is not completely problematic. Like any debatable item, the device has its high points. For instance, by preventing people with a high BAC from driving, the device may possibly keep the roads safer and less prone to accidents during certain hours where heavy drinking is the norm. However, the saving grace of this appliance is that it is a compromise between the court and the convicted. Although often considered harsh for first time offenses, this is a fair conciliation for people with multiple offenses who may deal with alcoholism. It allows them (and others granted the privilege of a hardship license) to keep their jobs so they can live their lives and support their families. The device grants people the freedom to live their lives and attend counseling while also promoting more responsible driving decisions.

In a perfect world, that may be enough, but this world is not perfect, and the device is considerably flawed. The IID is rarely granted to alcoholics, but often first time offenders who have made a mistake. Moreover, once the device is installed, it is not set to prevent drunk driving. IID's are often set below the legal limit. When the ignition interlock device is set on a car, it can potentially destroy a person's life for having a single glass of wine with dinner. This is highly unreasonable, and rather than restricting binge drinking and irresponsible driving, it aims to control a person's life by hindering alcohol consumption completely. In addition, the detectors are installed at the defendant's expense, meaning the privilege is only available to those who can afford it. The same options should apply to every person who walks through that court, and not only those with a fat wallet.

The ignition interlock device is not a reliable device, and it relies on the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset. That is not what this country's legal system is supposed to represent. Testing has suggested that these machines can easily mistake items like baked goods, protein bars, mouthwash, and cough drops for alcohol. The sensor tests BAC through an oxidation reaction to the breath, unlike the more reliable infrared spectroscopy used in evidentiary breathalyzers. Therefore, drivers are given a sub-par machine that can potentially label them a criminal and destroy their lives. A person should be innocent until proven guilty, but with an unreliable detector, the opposite is true.

Hopefully you are now more educated on this matter. Before the laws evolve any more, the existing laws need to be perfected. No one should ever be charged for a crime they have not committed and until these devices are proven to be more accurate, they should not be admissible in a court of law.