Posted on 03/21/2002 4:26:03 AM PST by E Rocc
Drunken-driving limit won't change
03/21/02
Stephen Ohlemacher
Plain Dealer Bureau
Columbus
- A proposal to lower the legal alcohol limit for Ohio drivers died in the state legislature yesterday, even though the state is risking millions of dollars a year in federal highway money by keeping the higher limit.
House Speaker Larry Householder scheduled a vote on a bill to lower the legal blood-alcohol limit from 0.10 percent to 0.08 percent yesterday. But he took it off the calendar at the last minute when he realized there weren't enough votes in the House to approve it.
"In our caucus [of 59 members], we had eight votes for it, that was it," said Householder, a Perry County Republican. "They don't like it."
But lawmakers were able to reach agreement yesterday on another hot social issue: school prayer.
A House-Senate conference committee voted 5-1 to approve a bill that permits schools to have a moment of silence in class for "prayer, reflection or meditation upon a moral, philosophical or patriotic theme."
The bill is a compromise. The old House version would have made the moment of silence a requirement, specifically saying the time could be used for prayer.
The old Senate version would have given schools the option to have a moment of silence without mentioning the word "prayer."
The compromise bill probably will be voted on by the full legislature in April, after lawmakers return from spring break.
The Ohio chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving will continue to fight to lower Ohio's drinking limit, said Judy Mead, the chapter's executive director. Householder said the group will probably be successful, but not this year.
"I think it's inevitable that we are going to have to do this in Ohio because of the federal funds that are in jeopardy," Householder said.
Federal law penalizes states that do not adopt the 0.08 percent standard by Oct. 1, 2003, by withholding federal highway construction money.
The state estimates that Ohio would lose $11.9 million in 2003-04, escalating to $49.2 million a year in 2006-07.
States that adopt the standard by 2007 would get all the money returned.
Senate President Richard Finan called the federal law "blackmail, pure and simple."
"It does not solve the problem," said Finan, a suburban Cincinnati Republican.
"It doesn't get at the people that are out there killing and maiming on the highway. It gets at the poor guy who had a glass of wine or a beer with his or her dinner, and then gets picked up on a DUI and arrested and winds up in jail."
Mead said, "We are not talking about moms and pops with two drinks. We don't care about them. At 0.08, we know that all of us are impaired."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says a 170-pound person would need four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach to reach a 0.08 level.
Critics of the moment of silence bill note that state law already says school boards cannot prohibit teachers from providing quiet time for "programs or meditation upon a moral, philosophical, or patriotic theme," according to the General Assembly's research agency.
But supporters said the new bill would make schools more comfortable in providing a moment of silence.
"I think this gives them some legal protection," said State Rep. Jamie Callender, a Willowick Republican and chairman of the conference committee.
State Sen. C.J. Prentiss, a Cleveland Democrat and the only member of the committee to vote against the bill, said a moment of silence could make some non-Christian students uncomfortable.
"We're talking about children who are into following the leader and peer pressure," Prentiss said.
One expects these kinds of abuses from Democrats, but it's disgusting when the party that allegedly supports the Tenth Amendment plays this game.
-Eric
The habitual drunk driver isn't concerned about the legal limit. However, the attorneys and municipalities make lots of money from legal fees and fines.
Yep. It's also pointless. The blood-alcohol level of DWI's is .17 on average. Changing the limit from .10 to .08 won't accomplish anything with those who ignore the limit completely.
I'm glad to see at least one state fighting back.
Amen.
Exactly the reason the fed needs to be defunded. This is a State issue and the reliance on federal largesse is undermining the Constitution. Too bad our "strict constructionist" President doesn't understand that. Hope Ohio has the guts to see this through.
Just wait, Ohio will go along with the program at some point.
I always wondered what would happen if the state just told the fed to go ahead and pay up all funding or the state would commence seizing fed lands, buildings, bases, vehicles, etc.
Now there's an idea. Either that, or just let the interstate highways in Ohio deteriorate. When enough people complained, Congress would re-think that law.
Where at least I know I'm freee...(sorta)
We usually hold out in this battle, but ultimately fall in line, unfortunately. We were one of the last states on the "raise the drinking age to 21" bandwagon as well.
Solution is easy: Stop sending the gas tax money to DC in the first place, where it is used as blackmail against us when we ask for it back.
Oh yeah, that would require freedom minded politicians. That animal has been extinct for decades now.
One of my favorite sayings is " What goes around comes around!"
You'll want to read the State Sovereignty Resolution and see how federal blackmail can be ended permanently.
Not extinct but certainly endangered.
Check the link in 13 above.
We usually hold out in this battle, but ultimately fall in line, unfortunately. We were one of the last states on the "raise the drinking age to 21" bandwagon as well.That was largely because the voters had just defeated a religious right-sponsored referendum to raise it by a 2-1 margin. Of course our beloved Democratic senators took that into account (not) before they both voted for the federal blackmail law.
At least they've held out on the motorcycle helmet law, so there's some hope.
-Eric
What kind of abuses are you talking about?Well for one, the people and government of our state don't think you should be forced to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle if you've been riding at least two years. The federales don't think we should have that perogative and are de facto fining us for exercising it.
Would you call that an abuse? I would.
-Eric
I'd be willing to pay a little more in taxes to tell the fed. gov. to shove it.
Just making sure you weren't advocating the forced wearing of helmets to get the $.Right now the feds use highway money to "enforce" the 21 drinking age, mandatory motorcycle helmets, and the 0.08% "presumed drunk" BAC. They used to enforce highway speed limits that way as well. None of this is any of the federales' business.I'd be willing to pay a little more in taxes to tell the fed. gov. to shove it.
The way I see it, the same busybodies who want to force you to wear a helmet on your motorcycle would love to force me to wear one when the top's down on my car.
Side note: Such people are in power in Shaker Heights, OH. They've passed a law saying that all bicyclists must wear helmets, even adults. Since Ohio state law specifies when a motorcyclist is allowed to not wear a helmet, they can't require those who qualify to do so.
So in Shaker Heights, it's illegal to ride a bicycle without a helmet and legal to ride a motorcycle without one. Liberals may be idiots, but at least sometimes they're funny. >:)
-Eric
I agree and here is the constitutional basis for that declaration:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of ceratin rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others retained by the people.
All U.S. citizens have the retained right to drive an automobile with whatever amount of alcohol in their blood.
A right is not a privilege.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.