Rosen: This is MADDness

Published March 2, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Colorado Rep. Joel Judd, D-Denver, is on the warpath against drunk driving. He's the sponsor of House Bill 1189, which would pull your license for five years for a first DUI offense and 20 years for a second - even if there were no damage or injuries involved. Actually, under pressure from prosecutors across the state, Judd has said he might ease the penalties called for in his bill. But if he doesn't, why should he be satisfied with half measures? If he's really serious about drunk driving, why not impose the death penalty?

Still, there's a method to Judd's MADDness (as in Mothers Against Drunk Driving). You can avoid even the most draconian penalties if you do what he really wants you to: install an alcohol-detection ignition interlock system in each of your cars at $1,000 a pop. In fact, Judd would like to mandate this for every vehicle you own, even if you've never been cited for DUI.

HB 1189 is a step in that direction. Faced with the loss of their license for an extended period of time, he figures most people would ante up and buy the device. (His bill also creates a fund through which taxpayers would subsidize the devices for those who can't afford them.)

The consumption of alcohol is a worldwide custom with a long history. Billions of human beings drink alcoholic beverages, often to alter their attitude. A glass or two of wine over a good meal enhances the dining experience without necessarily inducing inebriation. A beer or two at the ballgame goes hand-in-hand with good fellowship, hot dogs and peanuts. Even religious rituals include a sip of the grape.

Other than in the minds of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (founded in 1874 and, believe it or not, still around), assorted prudes, nannyists and neo-prohibitionists, imbibing alcohol is a perfectly respectable activity. It was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants to see us happy." Alcohol has been described, among other things, as a social lubricant. In the words of George Nathan, "I drink to make other people interesting."

Americans drink and Americans drive, and sometime they do both in the same evening. This can cause problems, although in the vast majority of instances it doesn't. That's why it's not against the law to drink and drive. It is against the law to drink too much and drive, as it should be. In other words, it's OK to drink and drive up to a point. The public policy debate centers on where that point is defined under the law.

It used to be set at a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10 percent. Under political pressure from groups like MADD, the level was tightened to 0.08. Single-minded zealots, like MADD, would like to tighten the standard even more. (In Sweden, it's 0.02.) They argue that, "Even if it would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?" The rational answer to that question is, "not necessarily." There would be no end to paranoid, risk-averse, nannyist control of your life if that were the only criterion for any law or public policy.

The real problem with drunk driving is with multiple offenders who are dangerously loaded. That's where we should be concentrating our efforts. The risk of a fatal crash is 20 times greater at a BAC of 0.15 (seriously drunk) than at 0.05 (barely tipsy). The minor degree of impairment at low BACs is within reasonable tolerances.

For millions of Americans, moderate drinking at nightspots or at a friend's home is an integral part of social interaction. And it's not always practical to have a designated driver. Too many responsible citizens are being harassed under current law at great cost and inconvenience in pursuit of "zero tolerance." Judd's bill would make it worse.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News