TheAgitator.com
On Second Thought…
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008Yesterday 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.
Via the comments, I see that today, Boston Herald columnist Margerie Eagan explains that Fagan’s bill seems to be an attempt to point out the absurdities of existing drunk driving laws.
I’m not a huge fan of introducing absurd legislation to make a political point, but if Fagan’s objective was to get lawmakers to stop passing knee-jerk DWI legislation, I was too harsh on him.
Of course, should his “protest” bill pass he’s still going to receive a significant bump in clientele.
Perhaps he went into this with the best of intentions, but it’s the wrong way to do it…trying for the subtle point to educate is generally lost on the electorate because they’re not paying close enough attention (or they’ll often misinterpret the intent as you think you may have done). It’s not usually that worthwhile to try with other politicians because they’re going to be most responsive to their electorate…so if the electorate thinks harsh drunk driving laws are a good idea, the politicians are still going to vote for them because it helps them to get re-elected. If politicians want to fix those attitudes they need to take the direct route and hopefully educate the public as to why harsher drunk driving laws often don’t accomplish their intended goals…unfortunately many politicians aren’t willing to take the risk that their positions will eventually cost them their jobs.
The problem with the subtle ‘protest’ legislation is that it’s not presented that way all the time. And someone whose agenda really IS to stop drinking at all will see it as support for their cause, and soon we’ll have a non-sarcastic bill that will pass and will do the same thing.
People who really believe something are immune to sarcasm.
Exactly. While demonstrating absurdity by being absurd has its value, a lot of people will think you’ve come up with a great idea.
If satire was the goal, then he didn’t go far enough. The fact that people believed it says it all.
What he should have done was introduced a bill that says DUI offenders aren’t entitled to due process or any other Constitutional guarantee, and they they are to be summarily executed.
I bet there are people who’d line up to support that, too.
The bac, for humor, should have been .000999.
As someone who lives in MA I can assure you there is nothing absurd or “knee-jerk” about our drunk driving laws. What is absurd is the whining and crying of defense attorneies like RepFagan who complain that the system is being harsh on their clients. The system is too punitive they say. It makes it hard for them to live thier lives, makes it hard on their familites as well. Newsflash to Fagan and his defense attorney pals–YOUR CLIENTS are the ones making their lives hell because they are raging alcoholics who continue to drink and drive ignoring the law and the public’s right to be safe on our roadways. The only people who are being inconveinced here are those of us who obey these “knee-jerk” laws by not driving while heavily intoxicated (newsflash-the average BAC for people pulled over is well above .08, its usually around .15). I would laugh my ass off if his dumb-ass attempt at sarcasim actually passed.
[...] legislator nut wants to lower legal limit to .02, which is like, a beer. Later, he apparently admits he’s just trying to make a complete farce of the system. Not [...]
I live in the Boston area and heard this reported on the radio. It was not reported as satire. Of course, I was just waking up as I heard the report and promptly hit “snooze” in disgust, so perhaps I was more muddle-headed than usual.
Dave D: If the average BAC of those pulled over is 0.15 (I gather that means “Typical people who are so drunk that it is noticeable”) what was the benefit in lowering the cutoff from 0.1 to 0.08?
I’m not a raging alcoholic, I don’t drink and drive, but I’ve been stopped in sobriety checkpoints. Readers of this blog know that sober people have been arrested for OUI.
It’s hard to get the real numbers, since if anyone in an accident has any connection with alcohol it’s labeled “alcohol related”. They tell me that cell phone users are as impaired as drunk drivers. I’ve driven with a cell phone, and I haven’t found it to be a particular impairment.