OK, so this may not be a sentiment that everyone will automatically agree with.. but stay with me, ok?  Here we go:  I really think that MADD and other similar anti-drunk driving programs have gotten out of control - to the point where their influence has made drunk driving penalties completely unjust.

Now admittedly, I can only speak to the state I currently live in, and the only one I've been arrested for DWI in.  In speaking to others, I think this state has pretty harsh laws.  The level for intoxication is .08, which is pretty low.  As I mentioned in another post - for a woman of reasonable size, 2 glasses of wine will put you over the limit. 

Also, as a matter of full disclosure, my views are definitely skewed by the fact that I've recently been through an arrest and trial for DWI.  I was coming home from a night with friends when I was pulled over for a bullshit charge (changing lanes without signaling) and eventually arrested for DWI.  I refused to submit to a breathalyzer during the arrest.

So let's look at this... I am a first time offender.  I've never been arrested before - I haven't even gotten a ticket in 14 years.  Since my arrest I've had an evaluation by a substance abuse counselor which indicates that this is an isolated incident and that I don't require substance abuse treatment.  I've done everything by the book.  Yes, I made a bad decision - after using alcohol, which after all, IS LEGAL.  Yet I am being treated exactly the same as someone who's got substance abuse problems, who has multiple offenses, who is a real threat to others one the road.

Does that seem just to you?

OK, let's hear it:  Impaired driving is unsafe at ANY level of impairment and therefore I WAS a threat to others, no matter HOW much alcohol I'd had prior to getting behind the wheel.  So let's look at that.  It's the reason that many states have reduced their level to .08.  Well, why not .05?  .02?  For that matter, why do bars even HAVE parking lots?!  You think that's funny, but I'm serious.  Either it's OK to let people drive to a bar to do something that IS LEGAL, or it's not.  I haven't done the research but I'm sure someone somewhere has data showing that lowering the legal impairment limit has helped decrease alcohol related accidents and fatalities. 

So if we stipulate that, even so, my original point stands:  is it really the right thing to do to charge every single person, regardless of situation, with a crime?  In the state I live in, DWI is a misdemeanor, meaning if I hadn't gotten my charge dismissed (which I did), I would have a criminal record.  For a first offense.  Does that seem reasonable to you?  

It seems to me that it would make more sense to have punishments that are appropriate to the level of the offense.  First time offenders could be sentenced to drinking driver classes and/or defensive driving classes, with the possibility of formal alcohol treatment if screening indicated that would be beneficial.  The penalties could even be based on BAC at the time of arrest, if that would make sense.  Repeat offenders would face harsher penalties, up to and including jail time and loss of license.  Doesn't that make more sense?  Why is it necessary for first time offenders to lose their license?  And why (as it is in my state) is it a one year revocation of license for refusing the chemical test??  (What would you do?  Do you know what to do if you're asked to take a breathalyzer?  I refused because I thought it was the right thing to do.  I still can't decide if it was or not, but I can tell you one thing - if you ask the cop for more information to help you decide you will NOT get any help.)

I'm not saying it's OK to get hammered and go cruising... not at all.   I'm also not saying that if you are a habitual offender, or have a serious abuse problem, or get in an accident or God forbid hurt someone while you're driving... that you shouldn't have the book thrown at you.  What I'm saying is that the anti-drunk driving forces out there (MADD being one of them) have gone way over the line of what's reasonable.  Punishments are theoretically supposed to fit the crime, and in my case I don't think that's true (my lawyer agrees with me, so it's not just me).

And it's not just in my case, either - there's a new law here that states that if you're pulled over for DWI and you have minor children in the car - it's a felony with mandatory jail time.  So if you go to dinner with the kids and have a couple of beers and are pulled over... or stop on the way home from baseball practice to get the kids ice cream and have a glass of wine or two... you're automatically goin' to the Big House. 

And after August 1 if you get an alcohol conviction you'll be required to put an ignition interlock in your car (which of course you'll be required to pay to have installed and maintained).  These things don't always work though - there've been instances of them being set off by hand sanitizers and mouthwash.  

Seriously?  How is all of this not unneccessarily punitive?  Or am I just so biased that I can't be objective about it?