Please drink (with your kids) responsibly

One of our most time honored traditions in Wisconsin is the ongoing debate over the consumption of alcohol: drunk driving, binge drinking, underage drinking, etc. It's important for us to have this debate, of course, since we really do have a problem (Hello, my name is Wisconsin, and I'm an alcoholic).

The most recent legislative response to said discussion comes from Sen. Judy Robson (D-Beloit) in the form of a bill that would alter the current law that allows persons under 21 years of age to drink in a bar so long as they're with their parents, guardians or spouse. "Bartenders are given the discretion to determine whether the child should be served."

The new bill would still allow those people between 18 and 20 years of age to drink if accompanied. Under 18, though? No more booze for boozy.

I'm of the opinion that the general legal drinking age should be brought back to 18 anyway. If you're allowed to vote, go off to war, and legally be considered an adult in general, why not be able to decide if you'd like a few nips or not?

But I also believe that the new bill makes a certain degree of sense. I'm not entirely convinced that a blanket restriction on under-18 drinking is the way to go, though, because there are exceptions to every rule - but overall, and call me a cynic, I don't think legal guardians are always the best judges of when and how much alcohol a minor should consume. Frankly, I think a lot of people make piss poor decisions - for themselves, and for their kids. This may well put me at odds with a lot of people, including The Sconz, who argues that "Parents who take their teens to wine tastings should not be decried for encouraging alcoholism, but lauded for encouraging moderation."

Problem is, there are far too many parents who don't know what moderation is, and who pass their bad habits on to their kids. That's liable to happen regardless of if it's at home or in public, but making it legal for them to do so out at the bars just makes the state an enabler.

Teaching moderation and responsible drinking habits, coupled with rigorous enforcement and punishment (you know, actually holding drunk drivers responsible sooner rather than 8 tickets later), are the best tools for curbing bad alcohol-related trends in this state. I don't think the former is accomplished by allowing children to belly up to the bar and throw a few back with their folks.

Decker wrong on DUI law

Between his stalling of and compromise on anti-smoking bills and now his recent statements about proposed new laws dealing with drunk driving offenses, I can't help but think of Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker as being kind of a tool. I believe he's wrong, anyway.

Wisconsin has a terrible drunk driving record, and some legislators, pushed on by a whole chorus of angry citizenry and organizations, are actually trying to tighten our state's laws on the matter. Decker, of course, has a thing or two to say about that:

The Weston Democrat said in an interview Wednesday that making a third drunken driving offense a felony would be "too severe," while allowing sobriety checkpoints is undemocratic.

"I just don't think stopping somebody without just cause is the way for us to work in a democracy," he said.

On third offense drunken driving, Decker said, "You could get one at 20 (years old), one at forty, and one at 60. That spans 40 years. Does that make you a felon? No."

I'm going to disagree with him on that one. Each time a person gets behind the wheel after tossing a few back, they put others in danger. I don't care if those instances are two weeks apart or two decades--it's the same danger. And if someone doesn't get the message that drinking and driving is unacceptable the first two times they get caught (not to mention all the times they do it without detection), then I think absolutely the third strike should be more severe.

I do agree that sobriety checkpoints smack of being undemocratic. The United States Supreme Court, in Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz, may have declared them to be constitutional, but it was on the somewhat dubious pretense of the slight Fourth Amendment infringement being outweighed by the good done for public safety. I haven't entirely made up my mind about this yet, but I can't help but feel like bending the safegaurds granted by the Constitution in the name of some unproven improvement in safety is a bit...wrongheaded.

But back to the issue of making a third OWI/DUI offense into a felony. Currently, Wisconsin has one of the worst drunk driving records in the nation, with 42 percent of all traffic fatalities involving an intoxicated driver. We read stories about people being arrested for their 6th, 7th, and even 8th offense. If some of those individuals had been charged with a felony on their third strike, it's far more likely that the subsequent incidents would have never occured.

Of the 1,010 drunken-driving arrests in 2008, a third were repeat offenders. Three of the arrests were for drivers racking up their ninth OWI arrests.

This is, simply put, completely unacceptable. And while I recognize that there will always be those people who insist on getting behind the wheel after drinking a bit too much, I also recognize that a good way to significantly cut down on that risk is to a) impose stiffer and longer-lasting penalties on offenders so they can't reoffend, and b) impose stiffer and longer-lasting penalties so that more people will be put off from offending in the first place.

We need comprehensive, no-bullshit laws on the books for dealing with this issue. It's not partisan, it's personal, and it's in everyone's best interest to see that it's done. Making sure Russ Decker listens to us, and failing that, no longer gets to be Senate Leader (or even a senator), is a good step along the way.

Tighten laws on getting tight

The New York Times recently published an article dealing with the culture of drinking in Wisconsin, one that has already sparked some debate in newspapers and blogs across the state. It's an issue that was already on the minds of many folks 'round these parts, and rightfully so.

Wisconsin has the highest rate of binge drinking in the nation - a dubious honor, at best. We also have some of the most lax drunk driving laws, giving motorists four strikes before hitting them with a felony charge on their fifth offense.

And while I am not but any means an advocate of teetotalism, I also see a huge difference between government telling adults when they can or cannot drink, and government telling people that they will be severely punished for drinking and driving, or other alcohol-related offenses.

This won't make me popular with quite a few of my fellow Wisconsinites, but there simply is no excuse for drinking and driving. Period.

Oh but you know your limits! You can have four beers and then get into a car and drive just fine! Or my personal favorite: "I drive better when I've had a few!"

Screw. You.

My sober ass is out there on the road with you, and I really don't feel like taking you at your word on that. There are also children, and mothers, and fathers and friends sharing asphalt with your drunk-ass. Remember that next time you think about knocking a few back and then crawling into your car, will you?

But as much of a fan of personal responsibility as I am, I also firmly believe that our drunk driving laws need to be much, much more strict. Get caught doing it once? Misdemeanor (second chances are important). Twice? Take away their license and send 'em to counseling. Third and beyond? Felony, no question. Get these people off the roads.

Back to the article, though, there were a couple of quotes that really got my dander up:

“We’re not ashamed of it,” Mr. Madland said. He said anti-alcohol campaigns were efforts to “demonize” people who simply liked to kick back and relax with some drinks.

“It’s gotten to the point where people are afraid to have a couple of beers after work and drive home, for fear they’ll be labeled a criminal,” he said. “At lunch, people are afraid if they order a beer someone will think they have a drinking problem.”

Most anti-alcohol campaigns are not out to demonize people for relaxing with a few drinks - they're out to lessen the amount of binge drinking that goes on, and to stop people from having a few drinks and then hopping into their cars. And that fear that you'll be labeled a criminal for doing so? Well, then maybe it should make you think twice about doing it, shouldn't it. Have a glass of water afterward, and wait out the buzz before driving (or, y'know, don't get totally trashed). It's not that hard.

And then there's this:

“On game days, a buddy of mine will come to the bar with his 2-year-old, his 8-year-old and his 10-year-old,” Mr. Whaley said. “He might get a little drunk. But his wife just has a few cocktails. It’s no big deal. Everybody has a good time.”

I'm going to echo the sentiments expressed over at Caffeinated Politics and say, then who the hell is driving those kids home?

These are the types of attitudes that need to be combated. There's nothing inherently wrong with drinking, but our prevailing ideas about what levels are acceptable, how we approach transportation afterward, and how we teach our children to understand the issue, are more than a little messed up.


(the Madison Beer Review has a pretty good/interesting take on this issue, here)