Getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated by alcohol is more than just stupid - it's morally irresponsible.
When people drive drunk, they aren't just putting themselves in danger - they are putting other human beings in danger. In 2011, 9,878 people in died in drunk driving crashes, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving - a nonprofit organization in the United States; that's equivalent to one death every 53 minutes. In 2010, 211 children were killed in accidents that were the result of drunk driving; that's at least four a week.
It will never cease to mystify us why someone would do something as foolish as driving drunk - especially when the statistics are so staggering and the possible consequences are so immense.
Regardless of all the warnings, however, many people still decidedly take a chance whenever it suits their pleasing, their impulses or their invariable habit of relying on poor judgment under the spell of inebriation.
Thomas Nochajski, a research professor in UB's School of Social Work, has vocalized support of a current federal proposal to lower the DWI blood-alcohol-content level from .08 to .05 as a way to save lives. He cites that when the limit was dropped from .10 to .08, there was a decrease in fatalities that coincided with it.
Anything that saves lives is a good thing and getting drunk drivers off the road is enormously important. We support any type of practical legislation with the intention of removing those who pose a danger to everyone.
While we like the idea behind this proposal, we recognize gaps in its effectiveness.
The biggest impact this change is likely to have is it would increase the amount of people who get arrested for DWIs more than it would decrease the amount who choose to avoid the risk.
Plus, how many people can really judge themselves to be .05 as opposed to .08? How many people will get arrested for blowing .06 and then face the same penalties as the person who blew .16?
We would hope that with lowering the limit, people would become too afraid to gamble. The majority of the time, however, the people who drive drunk are the people who are in a habit of driving drunk already. The responsible people who limit themselves to one or two drinks each occasion (and who have made that decision before they started drinking) are the ones who would be affected by this change the most.
The amount of drinks it takes to reach a BAC level of .08 varies for each person - but for many, the amount of time it takes to reach a .08 is pretty quick and takes few alcoholic beverages. Consider the responsible adult male who slugs a few back with his buddies on the links every Saturday. Should he have to go through the legal process that entails receiving a DWI for drinking three or four beers in a span of a few hours before driving? Is his decision dangerous enough to merit legal ramifications?
Nachajski notes that approximately 900 of those fatal car accidents in 2011 were the result of drivers with a BAC in between .05 and .07. That's a lot of human lives whose premature deaths could have (and should have) been averted. So the answer boils down to yes.
The problem remains that this won't change many people's habits and it will be hard to uphold. Even Candace Lightner, founder of MADD, has said she doesn't support the proposal - citing that it wasn't realistic and wouldn't be enforced.
It is time people fully comprehend the severity of this issue, however, and process the possibility that it could someday be them who loses a friend or loved one to drunk driving. Or perhaps you could kill someone from driving after drinking "just a few." It happens all the time.
While the chance this proposal has to be passed into law is slim at this point, it needs more consideration. If a law has a chance at saving 900 lives a year, it should be given its day in court - along with the driver who might be sent there by it.
Email: editorial@ubspectrum.com
