7 Responses to “The James Fagan Employment Act”

1. #1 |  Josh |  March 17th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

   Pretty much the equivalent of the anti-tobacco lobby pushing its agenda in order to manipulate smokers to buy the latest anti-smoking products, produced by the anti-smoking lobby.

   Well played, Mr. Fagan.

      +0
2. #2 |  David Chesler |  March 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

   The man deserves a doublespeak award for explaining that with a 0.08 limit you’re going to be gambling — is it 0.07 or 0.09? If I’ve had 3 beers can I have another half bottle? — but with his improved limit you’ll be safe because you won’t have drunk at all if you’re going to drive.

   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.)

      --1
3. #3 |  TC |  March 18th, 2008 at 3:32 am

   GAWD I thought you were going to say he was selling insurance!

   Nothing like an R22 to drive profits!

      --1
4. #4 |  colson |  March 18th, 2008 at 10:11 am

   What is funny is to see people in the comments section of the article actually saying stupid things like “how many people have to die….”. We’ve heard this story before except it came under the guise of “second hand smoke”

      +0
5. #5 |  David Chesler |  March 18th, 2008 at 11:08 am

   Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan (see website link above) today notes

   “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.

      +1
6. #6 |  The Agitator » Blog Archive » On Second Thought… |  March 18th, 2008 at 11:21 am

   [...] Yesterday I posted about Massachusetts Rep. James Fagan’s attempt to slash the state’s BAC limit from .08 to .02, effectively zero tolerance. I also noted that Fagan is a criminal defense attorney specializing in DWI cases. [...]

      +0
7. #7 |  jim |  June 18th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

   Why do elected public officials become heros when they create laws IN RESPONSE TO publicized tragedies? The notion that laws are good enough until someone REALLY breaks one seems strange to me. Does the news media have that much power?

      +0

---