Drunk Driving Comparison

imagesThe issue of drunk driving rose to nationwide prominence in the 1980’s.  California resident Candace Lightner founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving when her daughter was hit and killed by a recidivist drunk driver.

People might think existing laws are too harsh or possibly too lax, but there’s a general consensus that drunk driving is a legitimate public safety issue.  But what’s interesting is the degree to which it has become micro-managed by the federal government.  We’ve seen a gradual strengthening of existing laws regarding what constitutes an unacceptable blood alcohol level.  From 1.0, to .08 and now it has been suggested that it be further reduced to .05.

If you can approach the drunk driving issue with such a degree of specificity (down to continual modification of the decimal point), then I think you can make a blanket case for disseminating the AGSAF mission statement to the general public.

People have a fundamental right to know that if they are in a large, confined crowd and receive an evacuation notice and/or panic-inducing information from their cell phone or mobile device… it’s almost certainly a hoax designed to create an artificially generated stampede.

This is simply a matter of knowledge.  It may be an uncomfortable discussion, but it’s still a basic issue of public safety.  When compared to the prospect of an artificially generated stampede, to hold the DUI standard to such a higher degree doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

The government can be incredibly precise and proactive with laws governing other activities deemed harmful.  Fines for speeding in a construction zone are often double the amount.  With regard to the sale of illegal narcotics, there are stiffer penalties for selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school or playground.  How about aviation screening procedures?  Exactly what constitutes a knife, a blade or an acceptable amount of a liquid substance?

The federal government often goes to great lengths when it specifies exactly what action and behavior is considered to be “dangerous.”  Is it really asking that much to make the AGSAF mission statement available for public consumption?  It’s certainly something the overwhelming majority of the public would agree with.  It might be a touchy subject, but it’s neither confusing nor complex.  People have a fundamental human right to know the truth.  Knowledge is power.