Stiffer penalties
Re: “Enough is enough” (1/24/2019): I believe that Michael Cummins’ piece provides an ineffective solution to drunk driving in Wisconsin. Wisconsin cannot be compared to British Columbia or South Australia in terms of alcohol consumption. With a new .05 legal limit, thousands of Wisconsinites could no longer enjoy watching weekend games without the incessant fear of being detained during their drive home.
Lowering the legal limit fails to accomplish the goal of reducing alcohol-related fatalities. Over 70 percent of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities occur with a driver having a BAC of .15+, much higher than the current .08, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The solution is not in lowering the legal limit, rather it is in more strict punishment of DUIs.
New drunk driving provisions should focus on the dangerous, habitual drunk drivers. I often see news stories of individuals charged with yet another DUI. One-third of convicted drivers are repeat offenders, according to NHTSA. The first change should be making the first instance a criminal offense. Wisconsin is the only state where the first instance of drunk driving is treated as a civil offense, similar to a traffic ticket. After, more strict consequences for all violations should be enacted to deter acts of any would-be drunk drivers, as well as the repeat drivers from endangering more lives.
— Trevor Newton, via email
Prevent purchase of alcohol
Re: “Seriously, enough is enough” (2/28/2019): I propose that instead of focusing on only driving, we take steps to prevent chronic drunk drivers from buying or consuming alcohol. It’s already mandatory to present ID to buy alcohol, to prove one’s age. We should add a no-alcohol adult option for drivers licenses and IDs, modeled after those issued to people under 21, with similar penalties for buying, selling, or serving alcohol.
Yes, it would still be possible for someone to get their hands on alcohol, just as it is possible for an alcoholic without a license to get their hands on a vehicle, but there are many advantages, including that preventing drinking stops the cascade of alcohol-impaired decisions at the beginning, rather than after impairment has already set in.
— Steve Vig, via Facebook
It’s time the Tavern League steps up and funds alternative driving options in smaller towns. These towns are full of alcoholics and no way for them to get home. Start holding bars accountable as well for over-serving.
— Michael Joseph, via Facebook
Leap of faith required
Re: “Supreme Dilemma” (2/28/2019): Judge Brian Hagedorn’s claim that “I’m not running to impose whatever my viewpoints are” is pure hogwash! Of course he is doing exactly that. Brian, your views are yours to hold, but don’t pretend they won’t affect your decisions. Were these not your exact words, back in 2014, when you stated, “My faith impacts everything I do in the workplace.” Enough said.
— Christine Raschick, via email
Correction: Last week’s review of Trouble in Mind should have named director Sandra Adell, who was instrumental in bringing the play to the Kathie Rasmussen Women’s Theatre.
