Proposed state DUI law changes have the hiccups

Two bills pertaining to alcohol consumption while driving are weaving their way down the highway in the Washington State Legislature.

Senate Bill 5037 would drop from five to four the number of driving under the influence infractions to finally be charged with a felony. And House Bill 1874 lowers the legal blood alcohol limit from the current .08 to .05.

At last check SB 5037 had moved to the House for consideration and HB 1874 never made it out of committee and its future for this session is uncertain.

The Cheney Free Press editorial board raises their glasses with a toast to where both pieces of legislation landed.

We have issues, however, with both.

The biggest problem we see surrounds SB 5037. What made someone think in the beginning that it was anywhere acceptable that a five-time loser in the DUI lottery should get that many chances to kill someone?

In baseball, and with other felonies in the state, it’s three strikes and you’re out! While this is an improvement, there needs to be further work done.

Typical effects at the.05 level, the Washington Traffic Safety Commission suggests in its literature, include exaggerated behavior, impaired judgment and a release of inhibition. Does this apply to a 200-pound man the same as a 125-pound woman? Guess we have to do some research of our own and just see?

Our argument with HB 1874 is exactly that. Two people may each blow that number, but because of weight and metabolism are affected differently.

Let’s say one of us goes and has a couple of beers and on the way home gets pulled over for a defective taillight. The presence of alcohol is detected and that person is put through the field sobriety test.

Passing walking the line and placing your finger on the nose all works out fine. But the blood alcohol test records a .051 and it’s off to the hoosegow, and the litany of legal, insurance and financial problems that follow.

Most of us who enjoy a drink, or two, know when it’s time to call a cab, or hit the Uber app. Many will argue where their personal line is. But few of us know is it one or two pints of a favorite IPA? Or just how many Bud Lights puts a person in jeopardy?

One of the proponents of HB-1874 is the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. They provided information on the varying effects of alcohol, which seemed to back up the question of just what in fact constitutes a BAC level that will put you and others in jeopardy.

In Canada, where, ironically, their run of the keg beers pack a bigger wallop of over 5-percent, most provinces have made driving under the influence a non-criminal offense for testing in a range of .05 – .08.

According to a news report from Spokane Public Radio, Shelly Baldwin from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission said 28,000 people were arrested for drunk driving in 2016, well down from about 40,000 a few years ago.

That indicates a significant improvement, so why further split hairs on the impaired level?

And with marijuana legal in the state, the idea of mixing that and alcohol seems it can further complicate matters. The other regulatory part of HB 1874 drops the legal level of tetrahydracannabinol in pot, the buzz producer, to 5.0 from 8.0.

What HB 1874 seems to really be about is distracted driving. The kind that happens more often with cellphone use (there’s already a law on the books for this), trying to tune the radio, chow down on a messy hamburger, or having rover on your lap while driving.

Where is legislation on those?

Eventually putting HB 1874 in place adds to an already nighmarish enforcement issue, and takes valuable law enforcement resources away from where the real problems exist.

The real issue in our estimation, and it’s shared by many, are those habitual offenders who do go way over the line, and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers say as much.

“MADD does not support efforts to lower the BAC to .05 because we are focusing our efforts on proven countermeasures that work, such as ignition interlock laws for all drunk driving offenders and sobriety checkpoints,” J.T. Griffin, MADD chief government affairs officer wrote in an email.

Let’s first run legislation like this through its own sobriety test the next time.