SHOULD WE ACCEPT THE NEW FEDERAL ALCOHOL LAW? 
                                        WISCONSIN AT A CROSSROADS   
                                                  

                                              By: Alex Redd
                                                April 20, 2003
                                                 Madison,WI

This is a copy of an argumentative public policy paper that I have proposed to the Wisconsin state legislature, in a bid to persuade lawmakers to comply with the new federal blood alcohol content (BAC) level of 0.08. My intention is to also seek your opinion on this salient policy issue that involves your input for future decision making and approval by members of both houses. 


Should the state of Wisconsin reduce its current blood alcohol content (BAC) level from 0.1 to the newly imposed federal BAC law of 0.08? This question is salient in the minds of both conservative and liberal lawmakers in the legislature as well as interest groups and political observers. Under the current Wisconsin law, a person may not operate a motor vehicle if he or she has an alcohol concentration of 0.1 or more. If a person has two convictions relating to operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, he or she may not operate a motor vehicle if he or she has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. The current law also prohibits a person from operating an ATV, snowmobile or a boat if he or she has an alcohol concentration of 0.1 or more.  Mandate from the federal government states that Wisconsin risks losing 9.1 million in federal highway aid in 2004, if the state does not adopt the 0.08 BAC law by the end of September this year.  
           
Well, as the deadline approaches for lawmakers to make final decisions on this new federal 0.08 BAC law, Wisconsin finds itself in a predicament of “ give and take” situation. The state’s current fiscal budget mess beclouds its future progress. As Governor Jim Doyle proposed budget slash receives a twist and turn and some down dressing from lawmakers in both houses, Wisconsin’s looming budget deficit record for the foreseeable future is like a kick in the stomach. The state is striving to cut spending costs in order to clean up its current fiscal budget deficiencies in excess of 3 billion dollars. While this financial struggle is underway the federal government has threatened to cut 2% of Wisconsin’s highway annual budget, if the state fails to join the bandwagon with 34 other states that have complied with the new federal .08 BAC law.

I have weighed the BAC issue from both thematic and episodic perspectives, which make me to espouse the argument that, indeed, it would make sense for the state of Wisconsin to adopt the new federal government BAC policy. That is to say, the need for lawmakers to reduce the original state alcohol limit from 0.1 to .08. My claim on this subject matter is on three fronts: Wisconsin’s minority status as one of the only 15 states that still defines intoxicated driving as 0.1 BAC as opposed to rest of the majority 34 U.S states; the current sluggish budget predicament the state faces and; cogent arguments backed by supporting statistical evidence that adoption of the new federal measure would reduce the high rate of drunk driving related arrests and accidents.  

There are mixed reactions from many quarters with the debate to either accept the federal BAC standard or debunk the idea for several reasons. These mixed responses come from interest groups, public health and medical communities, law enforcement agencies that persist to maintain their divergent views and arguments in favor or against the new federal BAC policy. For example, the American Beverage Institute (ABI), a coalition of restaurants and on-premise retailers, has been fighting the .08 BAC legislation both on the state and federal levels. Sharing similar beliefs with the ABI is the Tavern League of Wisconsin (TLW); its members traveled to Washington D.C last year to lobby against provision to require states to lower the BAC level to .08 percent. “ We have been successful in defeating this legislation in D.C and in Madison,” writes the TLW, in their success annual report (www.tlw.org). According to Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), Wisconsin is the one of the only 15 states that has not changed its 0.1 BAC level. 

While many arguments and counterarguments roll from various facets of our society on this salient policy issue, the opposition groups to the new federal regulation argue that a BAC of .08 percent more accurately represents the level that impairs a driver’s judgment and ability. Therefore, These interest groups strongly oppose the new federal measure in that stricter BAC rules would only intimidate “ social drinkers” while failing to curb drunk drivers. As Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S (DISCUS), which represents some of the largest hard liquor companies, would bluntly put it “proper BAC standard is a state issue and should be decided by each state.” Most of these nationally recognized advocacy groups perceive the federal government’s attempt to hold back highway fund, as a backlash for non-compliance constitutes “federal blackmail.” Alcohol-related crashes cost society $45 billion, excluding pain, suffering and lost of quality human life” remarks Norman Y. Mineta, U.S Secretary of Transportation, during a press conference April 10, 2001 in D.C. With the continued hauling and pulling the WisDOT fears that the worst could happen with colossal consequences on its budgetary appropriation and smooth operation.


WisDOT estimates that the state would lose $9.1 million in federal highway money in 2004 if the Wisconsin State Legislature fails to adopt the .08 BAC law by late September 2003. The annual loss would increase to over $36 million by 2007. Loss of federal funding to continually re-condition deplorable roads and highways with safety measures for commuters would lead to more motor vehicle fatalities. Failure to adopt the federal BAC policy would undermine Wisconsin’s determination to balance its fiscal budget. This, in turn, would make WisDOT lose both its regular operating budget and manpower to ensure highway construction and safety. Thus, leading to deplorable road conditions. The current arguments raised by interest groups, such as TLW, ABI and DISCUS that are opposed to the new federal .08 BAC level, lack the meat to convincingly justify their cause stemming from imbalance budgetary crisis the state finds itself in. As WisDOT statistics show, the OWI test results on persons registered with alcohol level of  0.1 would increase astronomically. “Substantial progress has been made in reducing alcohol-related fatalities in recent years with progress being made in those states that have embraced the new Federal BAC .08 level” says Norman Y. Mineta U.S Secretary of Transportation. Studies estimate that the number of lives that could be saved nationwide if all states enacted the federal .08 BAC laws range 400 to 600 lives per year. 


A sure way to convincingly understand the reason why Wisconsin needs to adopt the federal policy is evidenced by statistical analysis: for example, in 2001 there were 37,077 OWI test results collected, of which only 375 persons registered an alcohol level of .08 and only 615 persons registered at .09.  Only 2.7% of the OWI test results in the range that is suggested for expansion (WisDOT). Law enforcement agencies favor and support the federal 0.08BAC legislation. Studies found that supporters argued that 0.08 per se would reduced the time that police officers spent in the courtroom, especially in cases of offenders with “ borderline” situations where the defense attorney was trying to dismiss the case for an individual who registered a 0.1 BAC. Police officers aided the federal .08 BAC movement by providing testimony at committee hearings.  


In the public health and medical community sectors, nationwide groups such as the American Medical association and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons publicly endorsed BAC limits lower than 0.1 per se. Another argument that proffers against the federal 0.08 BAC level is rather than the “social drinker,” the real root of the driving while intoxicated (DWI) issue is the “problem drinker.” Opponents of .08 BAC emphasized that the average driver arrested for DWI registers a BAC of .15 or above. Consequently, they argued an illegal limit of .08 BAC is no more of a deterrent to the average drunk driver than the current Wisconsin 0.1 BAC limit. 


Under 0.08 per se, chronic drunk drivers would continue to flaunt the law and risk the lives of others. To reduce drunk driving, the legislation should instead target the “real” problem---high---BAC offenders. I concur on this point. Drivers with high BAC levels are indeed the most dangerous type of drunk drivers, and strong legislation should be enacted to target this group. However, the state of Wisconsin should have legislation to cover all levels of impaired driving, and 0.08 BAC really aims to change the drinking and driving behavior of the average citizen, not the “problem drinker.” My point to counter the argument that 0.08 BAC is adoptable works well to disarm the opposition as far as the “problem drinker” argument was concerned. I agree that tougher laws may be needed to target high BAC drivers and repeat offenders. It is my belief, however, that the need for additional legislation of this type does not eliminate the need for 0.08 BAC laws------this would reduce fatalities at the higher BAC levels.
          

Opponents argued that the federal 0.08 BAC laws are unnecessary. There are state laws already in place to deter and punish drunk drivers, even at the lower-BAC levels. If existing laws are not effective, it is because enforcement is weak and inconsistent. Lobbyists against the federal BAC level argued that efforts to deter drunk drivers should focus on stronger law enforcement, rather than per se limits. In several states, advocates of 0.08 BAC limit conceded that stronger enforcement of current laws may indeed be necessary. Advocates against the new federal regulation argued that 0.08 BAC laws are not meant to displace but rather support existing legislative measures. Supporters of 0.08 BAC said they have always maintained that, in order to reduce the incidence of impaired driving, states need a combination of effectives, strong enforcement, and highly visible public information and education.      
          
       
    
Thanks for reading.

Alex Redd
Madison, Wisconsin

We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that time is ripe to do right.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, visit:

        http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/aam.html

AAM Website:  http://www.danenet.wicip.org/aam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------