Charleston.Net: Opinion: Editorials Stealth law on boating, drinking 07/04/03

Story last updated at 8:07 a.m. Friday, July 4, 2003

Stealth law on boating, drinking

The state Legislature approved a stricter standard for drunken driving after some debate, and a recommendation to challenge the federal threat to keep road money from the state. But the bill that determined the 0.08 percent blood alcohol standard for DUI also included the same standard for pleasure boat operation. We don't recall any debate about boating under the influence, or BUI as it is now known.

A story by reporter Schuyler Kropf quotes a Hilton Head lawmaker who cited the annual Rockville Regatta as an example of why tougher standards are required for drunken boating. "Accidents happen all the time," Rep. Joanne Gilham, a Republican, said. "Safety on the water is just the same as safety on the land."

Actually, piloting a boat isn't exactly comparable to driving an automobile, and the wisdom of applying equivalent standards for the operation of motor vehicles and boats should have been the subject of legislative debate. We can find no record that such debate took place.

The applicable legislative provision for BUI refers to the operation of a "water device," which presumably is bureaucratese for "boat." Whether that was an intended obfuscation or merely bad usage, its effect may have been to make the provision less apparent to the public and, perhaps, to some members of the Legislature.

If drunken boating is a problem, it should be addressed as a separate issue, and not included as part of a law that deals with DUI in a motor vehicle. Let's analyze the statistics, including the number of accidents and deaths, compared to those related to DUI.

The 0.08 standard for drivers was grudgingly endorsed by some legislators as the federal government threatened to cut $63 million in federal funds that South Carolinians, incidentally, sent to Washington as gas taxes. The surprise inclusion of the new standard for BUI should encourage legislative revision of the dubious and arbitrary requirement. The federal threat to withhold federal road funds certainly doesn't demand a new standard for BUI, as well as DUI.

The application of the new law also raises questions. Since blood-alcohol detecting devices are too sensitive to be used on the water, those suspected of BUI will have to be transported to the nearest police station -- a complicated and lengthy process.

Passing a stricter standard for BUI shouldn't be based on the random observations of a few legislators, and it shouldn't have been slipped into the DUI bill and quietly passed into law. It should be repealed and debated on its own merits.