When the federal government
threatens to withhold money from individual states that
don't conform to mandates, South Carolina is usually at
the head of the class crying foul. Our leaders like to
preach the state's rights gospel.
It really
hasn't been that way with the feds' insistence that
South Carolina reform its driving-under-the-influence
laws or face the loss of $66 million in federal highway
funds. The state has resisted shifting the standard for
legal intoxication from .10 percent blood-alcohol
content to the national standard of .08, but most of the
argument has been principled and
practical.
Opposing Mothers Against Drunk Driving
with an argument that defends drinking and driving isn't
a popular stand for most politicians, state's rights or
not. Attorneys have taken the lead in making the point
that no machine reading should constitute automatic
guilt. That opens the legal door to arguing in court
that a particular individual was not impaired, even with
a reading as high as .10 and certainly with one at .08.
The argument reinforces the position of the alcohol
industries that the crime is not drinking and driving,
it's drunk driving, and the real threat is those
consuming large amounts of alcohol.
It seems
clear the number of DUI cases will increase with the new
law. If MADD and others are correct, that will translate
into a reduction of deaths. That's a good
thing.
The new impairment standard will
snare unsuspecting drivers. It won't stop drinking and
driving, however, as there will continue to be many
people who believe they can consume alcoholic beverages
with meals and still be safe drivers a short time
later.
Now that lawmakers have submitted on the
legal DUI limit, they should take sensible action to
reduce the amount of alcohol the casual drinker will
consume.
The House has given approval to allowing
"free pour" drinks and imposing a 5 percent tax to
offset the loss of revenue from the presently mandated
minibottles. The measure is now in the Senate Finance
Committee, where it will remain until next
year.
Since minibottle drinks are mandated by a
constitutional amendment, the House also authorized
allowing voters to decide their future use.
The
theory originally was that minibottles would reduce the
amount of alcohol being consumed. The effect indeed may
be just the opposite since the average S.C. drink is 1.7
ounces of liquor, a half-ounce more than the typical
"free pour'' drink. There's also the issue of specialty
drinks requiring more than one type of liquor.
Minibottles make those too costly and too
potent.
Reducing the amount of alcohol per drink
will in many instances reduce the amount of alcohol
consumed by the restaurant or club patron. And that can
reduce the blood-alcohol level. A change in both laws is
logical.
South Carolina has the highest rate of
alcohol-related fatalities in the nation. As much as the
standard for "alcohol-related'' is debatable in that it
assigns the label to any accident in which a driver has
been drinking, the death toll on S.C. roads is
indisputable and unacceptable. We'll hope a tighter DUI
law will help reduce the three-deaths-a-day carnage,
believing that a scrapping the minibottle law can aid
the cause.
