<a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/State/apr02/37139.asp" target="_blank">You bet it is!</a>
This is just grand; WI (and many other states around the country) is being forced to lower its state laws on BAC by the US gov't withholding money from the Great Federal Teat.
Of course, this is not the first time that the feds have trampled a states' rights to administer its own citizens within its own borders. They pulled the same stunt with the national 21 drinking age; they'll do it again when some new 'problem' strikes their fancy.
But really, this is all a result of a bunch of bored housewives with a bully pulpit known as MADD - an organization that no sane politician dares stand up to, lest he be accused of not caring about the safety of his constituents by being 'for' drunk driving.
To quote Douglas Barr in his excellent book Drink: A Social History of America on the .08 limit:
Lowering the BAC to .08 also stretches police resources more thinly; police may catch more 'drunk' (ever done one of those breathalyzer machines? .08 is ~3 beers!) drivers, but they are less likely to get caught - costing the entire drunk driving campaign credibility.
Even Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD, has argued against lowering the threshold - "If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road; putting our trust in new laws and regulations that attack the tip of the iceberg will not make our highways safer."
So she's been branded a traitor by the very group she helped found.
But MADD has all but succeeded in getting its precious .2%; so what next? Are they going to press the Federal government for a national 'absolute sobriety' law?
I am tempted to write my governor and state reps and tell them to "Just say no" to the Federal teat; only by weaning our state from the "free" money the US government gives out can we become a separate and distinct entity, doing what those who know our citizens best decide is for the greater good of our state.
This is just grand; WI (and many other states around the country) is being forced to lower its state laws on BAC by the US gov't withholding money from the Great Federal Teat.
Quote:
| Wisconsin has lost $15 million in federal highway funds because of its refusal to lower its legal standard for drunken driving, and the state could lose an additional $126.8 million by 2008 if it doesn't comply, a new report shows. I am painfully aware we've got to do everything we can to keep our federal money," said Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greenfield), chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee. He does not support lowering the legal standard from a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 to 0.08 for first-time offenders Scott Stenger, lobbyist for the Tavern League of Wisconsin, agrees that money will increasingly be an issue as Wisconsin moves closer to the September 2003 deadline set by the federal government for states to enact a 0.08 law or lose highway funding. "That clearly will be an issue with the state budget," said Stenger, whose organization strongly opposes the lower standard. "It's because of the blackmail approach the feds have taken." The last time legislators considered a bill mandating a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 for first-time offenders was in June 1997, when a Senate committee sent such a measure to the Joint Finance Committee, where the bill died. Wisconsin currently has five different standards determining when an operator of a vehicle is intoxicated: 0.10 for first and second offenses. 0.08 for third offenses. 0.02 for fourth and subsequent offenses. 0.04 for operators of commercial motor vehicles. Absolute sobriety for drivers under age 21. Emerson said the current law is too complicated. "Let's just simplify things and make it 0.08 period. I think it's reached the level of absurdity," she said, noting that absolute sobriety should remain the standard for drivers under 21. The median blood-alcohol level for Wisconsin drivers involved in traffic fatalities is 0.17, Emerson said. "So what difference does it make if it's 0.10 or 0.08 when people are getting in their cars and driving with levels of 0.17?" she said. "All people are impaired to some degree at 0.08." The Legislature's Stone said the state's new multi-tiered drunken-driving law is aimed at repeat offenders. He does not think the Legislature should enact a 0.08 law for first-time offenders until statistics show how the new law works. "I'm not anxious to make that change, because I think we may have something to offer the rest of the country in terms of targeting repeat offenders with high blood alcohol levels," he said. "Some of the states with 0.08 have worse (drunken-driver accident) records than we have. To target at 0.08, I don't know if it's going to make our highways safer." |
But really, this is all a result of a bunch of bored housewives with a bully pulpit known as MADD - an organization that no sane politician dares stand up to, lest he be accused of not caring about the safety of his constituents by being 'for' drunk driving.
To quote Douglas Barr in his excellent book Drink: A Social History of America on the .08 limit:
Quote:
| If reducing the maximum permitted BAC to .08 does significantly reduce deaths in drunk driving accidents, then logically the states with .08 limits should have the lowest rates of alcohol-related fatalities in the country. But they do not. Of the ten (at the time) states with the lowest rates, only two, Utah and New Hampshire, have adopted the .08 limit. New Mexico has the highest rate of alcohol-related deaths despite it .08 limit. Reducing the maximum permitted BAC does not work because it does nothing to affect the vast majority of the drivers that are causing the problem. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the average BAC among fatally injured drinking drivers is 0.18, approximately double the legal limit. Nearly two thirds of what the NHTSA describes as alcohol-related fatalities involve drivers with a BAC of 0.14 and above. Reducing the limit will not stop people who drive after consuming large amounts of alcohol from continuing to do so. |
Even Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD, has argued against lowering the threshold - "If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road; putting our trust in new laws and regulations that attack the tip of the iceberg will not make our highways safer."
So she's been branded a traitor by the very group she helped found.
But MADD has all but succeeded in getting its precious .2%; so what next? Are they going to press the Federal government for a national 'absolute sobriety' law?
I am tempted to write my governor and state reps and tell them to "Just say no" to the Federal teat; only by weaning our state from the "free" money the US government gives out can we become a separate and distinct entity, doing what those who know our citizens best decide is for the greater good of our state.
