Posted on 12/30/2002 5:07:56 AM PST by Captain Shady
Sanford endorses tougher drunken driving law
South Carolina needs to toughen its drunken driving law or risk losing millions of federal highway dollars, Gov.-elect Mark Sanford says.
"South Carolina desperately needs the (federal) infrastructure money," Sanford said.
The Legislature has to lower the blood-alcohol limit to the federal level of .08 percent for a person to be considered too drunk to drive or the state could lose about $63 million in federal money for roads over the next four years.
Losing that money would hurt, said Gov.-elect Mark Sanford, who supports toughening the drunken-driving standards.
But some legislators will not be persuaded by the threat of losing federal road money.
"There will be some who will never embrace this because they don't like federal mandates," said Rep. JoAnne Gilham, R-Beaufort, who is sponsoring a bill in the House to lower the blood-alcohol limit.
It took 14 years for the Legislature to approve the current .10 percent blood-alcohol limit, passed in 2000.
South Carolina, which slashed $942 million in spending in the last 19 months and faces a $400 million shortfall next year, spends less per mile on roads than any other state.
Drunken-driving opponents say tougher standards are crucial in a state with the nation's highest rate of alcohol-related traffic deaths.
"If we're going to reduce drunk-driving deaths, we need the legislation," said Terecia Wilson, safety director of the state Department of Transportation.
The rate of alcohol-related road deaths in South Carolina is double the national average, and the problem is getting worse, the federal government says.
The penalties are part of a 1998 transportation funding law.
Sanford, a U.S. representative at the time, did not vote on that bill.
The penalties would be taken from federal gas tax revenues that are returned to states. The sanctions total more than $63 million.
"That's not chump change," said Eileen Doherty of the National Conference of State Legislatures and a transportation law expert.
"The federal government is not looking the other way," Doherty said.
Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have a .08 percent drunken-driving limit.
South Carolina already faces federal road money sanctions for failing to crack down on repeat drunken-driving offenders.
A federal mandate requires states to adopt tougher enforcement measures, such as giving repeat offenders mandatory jail time and impounding their vehicles, or lose money for roads.
About $9 million in federal highway money was transferred this year to the Department of Public Safety instead of the Department of Transportation.
The agency used half the money to pay for drunken-driving enforcement and education programs and then agreed to give the rest to the Department of Transportation for roads.
Alcohol-related crashes cost South Carolina more than $1.6 billion a year in lost wages, medical bills and death benefits, a Department of Transportation study shows.
Advocates for a tougher drunken-driving law say it's difficult to win over a Legislature that historically has turned its back on traffic safety laws.
"Sometimes we can't seem to communicate the cost of lives and the personal tragedies and make them real to our lawmakers," said Betsy Lewis, executive director of South Carolina Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
It's also tough to get through to drivers, she said.
"We believe that people have a choice to do certain things, but when someone chooses to drink, put the keys in the car and get out on the highways, they have just committed a crime."
Col. Mike Kelley, commander of the state troopers, said some people see drunken driving as a "socially acceptable crime."
A law setting the legal drunken-driving limit at .08 percent would be "another tool in the tool kit that we can use," he said.
Information from: The State
S.C. Funeral Home Offers Free Burials
The Associated Press A funeral home director is adopting a strategy to shock motorists into staying sober: free burial for anyone who signs a pledge to drink and drive on New Year's Eve.
"If I can make one person stop and think, then our effort's not in vain," said Grand Strand Funeral Home and Crematory director Chris Burroughs.
Burroughs, who conducts about 11 funerals every year for people who die in drunken-driving crashes, said he got the idea for the unusual offer from an anti-drunken driving campaign started four years ago.
Then, funeral director Barry Miller initiated Operation Stop and Think after he lost a family member in a drunken-driving accident. Miller, who is from Georgia and owns a funeral home in Tennessee, and said about 10 funeral homes in the Southeast are now offering the contract.
Anyone with a driver's license can sign the pledge on New Year's Eve - though no one does.
"Nobody's ever signed it, nor do we intend for anyone to sign it," Miller said. "Sometimes, you've got to go to extremes for people to take notice."
If the program has any impact at all, it could help reduce drunken-driving fatalities, said Trooper First Class Ashley Mew of the state Highway Patrol.
"Any campaign to deter drinking and driving and educating the public on the consequences will help," Mew said.
"There will be some who will never embrace this because they don't like federal mandates," said Rep. JoAnne Gilham, R-Beaufort, who is sponsoring a bill in the House to lower the blood-alcohol limit.They have a very good point. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to intervene in such matters.
Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have a .08 percent drunken-driving limit.What the article fails to mention is that 35 states did not have this limit before Congress began using blackmail.
-Eric
Blackmail by the Federal Government........with your money!
Yes, the problem has gotten out of hand.I've got a sister-in-law that was almost killed back in 1984 by a drunk 18-wheeler driver. Her knee in her right leg is fused together for life,so she can't bend that leg.
Although you are correct that the Constitution was not designed to protect us from such measures, it was designed to help the government protect its citizens. As a citizen of SC, I can tell you this is a serious problem. Do you honestly think it's okay for people to get tanked and drive and kill innocent drivers? The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from those who are so irresponsible.We're not talking about legalizing drunk driving here. We're talking about the state's right to set its own laws on those subjects where Federales don't have specific Constitutional authority. In Ohio, for example, at 0.10% one is presumed drunk, but one can be charged with DUI as low as 0,05% if there is other evidence (weaving, etc.). That's not good enough for the feds under this new blackmail law, and IMO it's none of their business.
The real problem drivers are actually the ones above 0.15%. Yet MADD and others would have states set the limit artificially low and have cities do high profile stuff like roadblocks (which BTW are ineffective in a cell phone world) instead of attacking this real problem. IMO, they are more interested in maximizing the perception of the problem than they are in dealing with it.
-Eric
Yet MADD and others would have states set the limit artificially low and have cities do high profile stuff like roadblocks (which BTW are ineffective in a cell phone world) instead of attacking this real problem. IMO, they are more interested in maximizing the perception of the problem than they are in dealing with it.Even Candy Lightner has said the organization has been taken over by neo-Prohibitionists. They should just be honest and drop one of the Ds from their name.MADD's real agenda ... Virtual Prohibition
-Eric
Actually, the Constitution was more likely designed to protect citizens from the government. But that's for another thread.
As a citizen of SC, I can tell you this is a serious problem.
Drivers who have a BAC between .08 and .10 are a serious problem? Can you provide a source for that?
Do you honestly think it's okay for people to get tanked and drive and kill innocent drivers?
Certainly not, but that isn't the topic here. The issue is whether impairment is significant enough at .08 to warrant a DUI arrest. Your post would have folks believe South Carolina is trying to legalize all drunk driving, or at least push the threshold higher. That just isn't the case.
That's very unfortunate - I'm glad you escaped the drunk driver, and I hope the person was punished severely for injuring you.
My husband used to be a police officer and we've both seen people who tested at .08 who shouldn't be driving. Perhaps there are other variables - prescription drugs, age, etc. Regardless, the fact remains too many people are driving when they shouldn't be and have killed and maimed innocent people. Anything done to stop that is okay with me. Having a designated driver isn't a hardship for anyone.
Your evidence appears to be completely anecdotal. Can you provide studies which show that folks driving with a .08 BAC are a greater danger than sober drivers? I understand this is likely a personal issue for you - it's completely understandable - but laws shoud not be made based on emotional arguments like the one you posted above.
Your comment that I THINK SC is trying to legalize drunk driving must be directed at someone else or you need to re-read my post.
The comment to which I responded was, "Do you honestly think it's okay for people to get tanked and drive and kill innocent drivers? which is much the same as asking a person, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Of course I don't think it's okay for people to drive impaired and kill innocent drivers! But your post implies that anyone against lowering the DUI threshold to .08 does in fact believe that. It's a dishonest comparison that should be left out of a debate.
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.