WHITE: Doing further study |
For
some, I’m sure it will be perceived as the fact that the National
Transportation Safety Board is behind the effort. They’re going to claim this
is some sort of local issue, and that having a “national” standard puts us all
one step closer to “Socialism!!!”
HECK,
THAT MAKES no sense in this context. But it makes no sense when they spew it
against the incumbent president. So some people are just going to cry “Communism!”
whenever they can.
But
the idea that Illinois will scrap its legal standard of a blood-alcohol level
of 0.08 for intoxication and allow a national standard of 0.05 to replace it
just strikes me as a stretch.
Because
I can remember being in Springfield back in the 1990s when it was one of those
perennial issues – lowering the legal intoxication standard from 0.10 to 0.08.
That was considered a radical step, and way too many people were eager to
believe that such a change would constitute the criminalization of social
drinking.
Someone
who stops off for a drink or two after work would suddenly find themselves
susceptible to every cop who feels compelled to make their local quota for
issuing tickets.
I
CAN REMEMBER how, year after year, this bill came up for a vote and went down
to defeat. A part of me is still amazed that it passed in 1997 – although a
large part of that was due to an influx of new legislators when the Illinois
General Assembly ended its two-year period of domination by the Republicans
(yeah, imagine that!).
There
were new legislators who hadn’t heard years of rhetoric about how bad an idea
it was to get tougher on intoxication, and just voted the way they felt about
the issue.
It
even ended up producing one of the Pate-isms – a verbal blurb by then-Senate
President James “Pate” Philip after he too wound up voting for the change to
0.08 even though he had been one of the concept’s most outspoken critics.
PHILIP: A thought for every issue |
“Sometimes,
you just got to do what the people want,” is what he said. What a revelation! A
legislator representing his constituents’ desires – rather than those of the
special interest groups.
IT
SEEMS MIRACULOUS when put in the context of a government that likes the status
quo and is always afraid of going too far when it comes to imposing change.
That
latter sentiment is what I suspect we’re going to hear with regards to the idea
of a 0.05 legal standard for intoxication.
You
have to admit that it sounds nice – 0.05 is more of a round number than 0.08.
Although there probably is some truth to the idea that in people who have
little body mass, 0.05 could be reached with just a drink or two.
But
then again, people with little body mass probably already realize they can’t
consume as much alcohol as other people – or they’re willing to ignore that
fact and probably need a harsher rule to keep them off the roads while
impaired.
SOME
PEOPLE MAY think it is some God-given right to be able to consume alcoholic
beverages when they want. Personally, I just don’t see it as a big deal, and
certainly not enough of an issue to hold off a public safety measure.
But
others aren’t going to see it that way. We’re going to hear the nonsense-talk
about how government thinks it can watch over us, rather than trusting us to
behave ourselves.
Trying to avoid more scenes like this |
Illinois
Secretary of State Jesse White told the Chicago Sun-Times the issue needs “further
study,” although that’s just seeking political cover.
Because
White has been around the political scene to know as well as anyone else just
how much of a stink will be forthcoming when this issue undergoes its serious
debate.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment