“He was the most vociferous and vicious critic of Melanie’s Law,” said anti-drunken-driving crusader Ron Bersani, whose granddaughter Melanie’s death led to this 3-year-old law meant to crack down on repeat roadway drunks.

…

What are the chances your bill will get passed? I began.

“None,” said Fagan.

Then why bother?

“To make a point,” he said. “I’m doing this to cause a discussion - about more thoughtful drunk-driving laws and about how Melanie’s Law is not working.”

Fagan thinks it’s too tough on drunken drivers.

Funny, most of us thought Melanie’s Law was working fine. Bersani cites state figures showing it’s helped reduce drunken-driving fatalities by 20 percent during its first two years. And Melanie’s Law was a Mitt Romney success story oft-quoted on the campaign trail.

Then there is a Byzantine explanation involving a Herald expose of a loophole that made OUI defense lawyers look bad, so Bersani thinks this is some sort of payback.

As I said, I don’t know Fagan, but if he was trying to make a point by getting people to point out that there is a safe, moderate level of alcohol consumption, I get it and congratulate him.

Nothing like an R22 to drive profits!

I don’t know James Fagan’s legislative history, but this is the first time I recall him making headlines (I’m local and I listen to local newsradio and read local papers.)

Quite a few people who didn’t say much when it went from 0.1 to 0.08 have said “This is stupid” and have gone on record that having a glass of wine with dinner, or drinking a toast at a wedding, does not make for impaired driving, so if that’s the equivalent of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, this could be a good thing. (That’s probably overly optimistic.)

Well played, Mr. Fagan.