[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    REMARKS ON THE .08 BAC STANDARD

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 22, 1998

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues an 
excerpt from the newsletter of the Conneaut Cellars Winery in Conneaut 
Lake, Pennsylvania. It was written by Mr. Joal Wolf, who is the 
proprietor of the winery. I believe this text eloquently articulates 
the arguments against the national .08 standard.

       Recently neo-prohibitionists, social Do-Gooders, and short-
     sighted legislators (all in the business to scare you and 
     make numbers look the worst possible) started their 
     propaganda with nastier attacks due to the lack of attention 
     in public. These attacks are direct at drinkers in general 
     and unfortunately not at abusers and drunk drivers. They 
     would like to duck the new reality, punish responsible 
     drinkers, and blackmail states and local jurisdictions by 
     withholding state highway funds (ISTEA) for not accepting a 
     Blood Alcohol (BAC) level of 0.8%.
       Decades of government data show that the number one cause 
     of drunk driving incidents is the alcohol abuser who drinks 
     excessively and then drives. Yet the proposed legislation 
     inexplicably ignores this reckless menace and instead calls 
     for laws that would make it illegal for a 120 lb. woman to 
     drive after drinking two glasses of wine within two hours. 
     According to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, the average BAC among fatally injured drunk 
     drivers is 0.18%, and more than 80% of these drivers have at 
     least 0.14% BAC. Federal government statistics show a very 
     small percentage, not enough for casual effects, of accidents 
     are caused by people with between 0.08 to 0.10% BAC. Fewer 
     than 1.0% of fatalities involve drinking drivers (not drunks) 
     with BAC under 0.10%.
       Drunk driving versus drinking and driving--why bother with 
     semantics when highway carnage is at stake? The real problem 
     is the act of driving drunk. The crime should be when your 
     ability is truly impaired, whether it is alcohol, lack of 
     sleep, anxiety, anger, illegal drugs, and so forth.

     

                          ____________________