Drunken driving affects every one of us, regardless of whether or not we drink, regardless of where we live and regardless of whether or not we drive.
Every day in southern New Jersey, arrests are made for DWI, and innocent people suffer. Like much of the country, it is legal to drive in this area with a blood alcohol level of 0.08, but is that enough to protect those of us who aren’t drinking?
Clearly, it is a personal choice whether or not to drink. Drinking is that person’s business until that person puts the key in the ignition and hits the road. When a person has a drink and then gets behind the wheel, he or she involves all of us.
The motorists on the road are directly affected as potential victims. Their family members are involved when their loved ones are innocently dragged into the horrors of a drunken-driving accident. Pedestrians are involved as innocent victims as well. It goes without saying that many people pay for one person’s choice to drink and then drive.
When an “accident” happens as a result of drunken driving, it is no accident. It is a clear and unabashed intentional act. Every reasonable person on the planet knows that drunken driving is a crime, and they know the potential outcome.
Perhaps one reason that there are so many accidents related to drunken driving is that America as a whole is too tolerant of the practice.
I believe a blood-alcohol content, or BAC, of 0.08, or 0.10 in some areas, is condoning this despicable act. What I suggest is that we go the way of Hungary (and in the past, Russia), and take a zero-tolerance stance. What I propose is a zero BAC level.
Ocean City, New Jersey, where I once lived, is a dry town, and it is all the better for it. If that town can survive as a dry town, surely we as a society can agree to make some adjustments. If one wants to drink, it is their choice alone. No one else should be involved.
I am not saying that people should not enjoy an after-work drink. What I am saying, however, is that they consider other options: drink at home, use the services of a designated driver or taxi, or walk home.
No matter where we are in this country, we should be even more vigilant in protecting each other from the horrors of drunken driving because we are, for the most part, a tourist destination. Communities that are tourist destinations are especially prone to the poor choices of a tourist who has no investment in this area, and who can think only of that drink followed by a drive back to the hotel.
It goes without saying that tourism is the lifeblood of many businesses and communities, but the lives of our citizens should take priority. The only way we can do that is draw a line of zero tolerance.
Perhaps it will never happen on a national level, but we can set an example as a state, and hopefully others will follow.
What is more important: money, that drink, or human life?