'It's part of our culture' doesn't excuse drunk driving
Doug Schneider, Press-Gazette Media
1:45 a.m. CST February 3, 2015
"But it's a part of our culture."
That's one of the tired excuses trotted out whenever someone tries to pass a law that gets tougher on people who drive drunk.
Yes, the production, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages continues to play a significant role in Wisconsin life, and we celebrate that role, from the breweries of Milwaukee to the wineries along the Door Peninsula. But it's ridiculous that some people still believe drunken drivers should get a slap on the wrist when they put lives at risk because Wisconsin is a place where businesses make and sell alcohol.
Consider these things that were "culturally acceptable" at one time:
Smoking in workplaces, taverns, airplanes. Child labor. Hitting your wife if she made you mad. Segregation. Slavery.
While I'm not likening driving drunk to enslaving people, it's time to bury the part-of-our-culture excuse for those who repeatedly drive drunk.
And while we're at it, let's address the other common rationalizations.
"It won't stop everyone."
That's one we heard a lot after state Reps. Eric Genrich and Andre Jacque said they would propose lifetime license revocation for some people who have five OWI convictions. Each year from 2010 through 2013, more than 800 Wisconsinites were convicted of a fifth offense — or greater — OWI.
Will some people whose licenses have been revoked continue to drive? Certainly.
But should we not try something just because it won't be perfect? Please.
Do we need laws, and funding, to provide treatment for repeat offenders? Absolutely. But the fact that we have yet to fix that doesn't mean they get to endanger your life. Or mine.
"We shouldn't punish people who didn't hit anyone."
A lawyer who handles OWI cases sent me a version of this rationale when I wrote earlier this winter about a man charged with his 10th drunken driving offense. He also accused me of being on the payroll of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
The lawyer's argument: The defendant was probably a military veteran who was within walking distance of home at a time when nobody else was on the road. (In fact, he was more than 20 miles from his house, it was mid-afternoon and nothing in Wisconsin law exempts military veterans from drunken driving penalties.)
"If I arrest you and you say, 'I'm only two blocks from home,' that's not a credit to you," Brown County Deputy Greg Gleason told me in December. "It's not some game that you almost won. You endangered people."
Brown County sheriff's deputy Greg Gleason has arrested 187 drunken drivers in the past three years. That averages to more than one a week.
Someone who threatened violence against a person would potentially face criminal penalties. Why shouldn't someone who threatens you with a 2,000-pound bullet?
"Taking a car away is unfair to the offender's family."
Some people who favor stiffer penalties believe the most-effective punishment would be to ban habitual drunk drivers from buying, leasing and registering a vehicle. The thinking is that someone who regularly flouts a law about driving drunk won't think twice about driving without a license.
Opponents argue that taking a vehicle away could leave a spouse and children without transportation and perhaps economic support.
That's a tough one, though I'm almost certain folks who've lost loved ones to drunken drivers would say it's worth the trade.
"It'll put the retailers out of business."
We hear this often ... just as we did when states were debating a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. The businesses — and their customers — adapted.
It feels like an element of this argument that insults most tavern operators — those who endeavor to make sure their customers haven't had too much to drink, and if they have, that they have a safe way to get home. And yes, it's possible that some people may choose to do less drinking in taverns.
But let me ask you this: Who's going to spend more in a tavern, a dead customer or a living one?