The problem is still big problem

Drunk drivers shouldn’t be allowed to drive.

Do we all agree? All, I mean, except those that choose to drive drunk.

It’s always amazed me when someone or some entity declares a “war” on drunk driving. Those people, those organizations are right in their intentions, but dead-dog wrong in how effective the “war” will be.

A recent newspaper article declared “Holiday drunk driving crackdown under way.” Whee! And I have some swamp land that would make a nifty site for a school.

Sure, law officers can stop cars, do sobriety checks, ticket or jail drivers who are over the legal alcohol limit. But that’s not going to stop drunks from driving.

There’s tough talk around the country close to any national holiday about how anti-drunk-driving programs are going to get tough on those who choose to drink and drive. The most recent admirable slogan told the tale: “Drink. Drive. Go to Jail.”

Good for those who want to get tough on thoughtless drinkers who opt to get behind the wheel after imbibing. The talk needs to be tough. But, unfortunately, talk won’t solve the problem.

The problem is systemic, it’s ingrained in our culture, and it’s not going to go away because of a “crackdown” or a catchy slogan. Drunk drivers have been coddled for far too long in our society and the trend continues despite so-called “tough laws.”

The problem is that society as a whole does not take the problem seriously; a majority of judges and prosecutors don’t either.

The current laws in most states basically sets up punishment for drunk those under 21 caught with illegal booze that include the possibilities of: Loss of driver's license for up to six months; fines up to $500; 20 to 40 hours of community service; mandatory alcohol awareness classes.

For intoxicated drivers, the penalties can be much worse (involuntary shiver goes here), including: Fines of up to $2,000; between 72 hours and six months in jail; loss of your driver's license for up to a year.

See the problem? The penalties are way, way too lenient to do anything but make a dent in the statistics. With legal language stuck into bills that read “fines up to ….”, and “between 72 hours and six months in jail” and “loss of driver’s license for up to a year,” there’s too much judicial wiggle room.

To get drunk drivers off the road, the penalties have to be solid and really hurt. Like, for example: First offense: Confiscation of vehicle, six months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Harsh? Yeah, buddy, and isn’t that the point? With laws like that on the books, laws which take the option for easy-out punishment away from the judicial system, Texas may have drunks walking alongside roads, but few of them would be driving on them.

Secondary issue

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters was quoted as saying that in 2007, 12,998 people were killed in crashes where a vehicle operator had a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher. But she’s happy that that number declined from the previous year’s dead count of 13,491.
It’s always a good thing when the number of deaths by stupidity show a downward trend.

But with all the money and publicity being thrown at the problem, the 3.7 percent decrease is no cause for celebration.