New Mexico DUI Offenders to be Blackballed from Buying Alcohol?

Last year I wrote a post on a proposed North Dakota law that would have required the drivers licenses of DUI offenders to bear an emblem that would prevent them from purchasing alcohol. The theory was that if convicted DUI offenders cannot purchase alcohol, there will be less repeat DUI offenses. It seems that New Mexico is following in North Dakota’s misguided footsteps with a proposed bill which would require New Mexico DUI offenders to carry a similarly branded license.

According to the New York Times, the bill came after State Representative, Brian Egolf, witnessed a man purchase a mini bottle of whiskey, pour it into a bottle of Coke, blow into his ignition interlock device, and drive away from a convenience store. The proposed law has gained popularity in a state that has one of the highest alcohol related deaths in the country. The law passed the New Mexico House of Representatives in a 59-to-5 vote. It has also since cleared a Senate committee.

Is such a law feasible? I doubt it. I tend to agree with Representative Antonio Maestas who characterized the law as a way to micromanaging alcoholism and criminalize addiction.

As was the problem with the proposed North Dakota law, everyone will be carded when trying to buy alcohol regardless of how old or young they might look. What’s more, anyone who sees the branded license will know why it has been branded. Buying alcohol is not the only thing that we use our licenses for.

This entry was posted in DUI Arrests and Procedures, DUI Laws, Recent News, State Legislation and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to New Mexico DUI Offenders to be Blackballed from Buying Alcohol?

  1. Duncan20903 says:

    I recall when I was a misguided youth I was arrested in Virginia for “assuming a name other than my own” because I told the cop my name was Mickey Mouse. After pleading not guilty and waiting for my 15 minutes in Court I got to watch the trial of two sisters who had been arrested for trespassing at a department store. Apparently they had been arrested for shoplifting at a different store in the same chain and the paperwork issued making them personae non gratae on that company’s property. Their very lame defense was that they thought they were barred from the store in which they were arrested. In delivering the guilty verdict the judge mentioned that Virginia law allowed him to bar a citizen found to be a problem drunk from purchasing alcoholic beverages in the State and likened the defendants behavior to that barred from buying booze going into a State ABC in Richmond, and buying booze. I’m not sure that the judge’s metaphor was on point. I only mention it because he noted that could happen in Virginia. I agree with you that a public display of the conviction to unconcerned parties is going too far. But with today’s technology and the new fangled bar codes the equivalent of an instant background check could easily be instituted and required to be performed while limited to sales of alcoholic beverages by licensed drinking alcohol vendors. But then again wouldn’t a passport work for proof of age too without specific exclusion under the law? If I were a drunk the only people who would see my driver’s license with such a stamp would be a police officer pursuant to his legal demand that I produce it.

    If you’re so inclined you can tell cops that they shouldn’t waste their time with the guy who tells them that his name is Mickey Mouse because his good friend wanted on felony charges and ripe for an additional felony just might be slinking away while he’s arresting a guy that’s going to get PBJ at worst. By the way, that happened in 1981 when I was still full of pi** and vinegar.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *