Slam the brakes on this bill

The Norman Transcript Editorial
Slam the brakes on this bill
Published: January 18, 2008

A bill filed by Rep. Scott Inman, D-Del City, would require that previous DUI or DWI convictions be noted on driver's licenses. The press release announcing this measure cited statistics on alcohol-related fatalities and quoted Mr. Inman's denunciation of drunken drivers at length, but failed to explain how adding more information to the driver's license would help.

"This is a measure that I believe will help reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths by providing information to the drinking establishments that this person has a history of drinking and driving," Mr. Inman said in the release. "Hopefully, the establishment will stop serving the customer after a few drinks."

Has Mr. Inman ever been in a bar? They only card you to make sure you're over 21. A regular customer, one who's in the bar often enough to be a familiar face, isn't going to get carded, having already established proof of age. The drinking establishment isn't going to see that information unless our drinker switches his custom to a new bar and is under the age of 35.

And why wait until someone has a DUI or DWI conviction before taking steps to prevent that person from driving drunk? Why foist all the responsibility off on the bars? It's up to all of us, whenever we drink or serve alcohol, to make sure nobody staggers off to their car.

There's a public safety reason behind tagging a sex offender's driver's license so a stranger asking for ID -- say, a convenience store clerk -- can be on guard.

But who, asking for ID, needs to know about an old DUI? A police officer making a traffic stop -- who already has quick access to that information. If you've ever received a traffic ticket, you know the drill. The officer takes your license, calls it in and the dispatcher radios back with your driving record.

No, the point of this bill is the old high school threat, "This is going to go down on your permanent record." It's designed to embarrass the offender every time he writes a check, boards an airplane, buys a pack of cigarettes... And it's designed to make Mr. Inman look good.

So why stop with DUIs? Why not speeders, who also cause fatal accidents, along with folks who run red lights or text message on their cell phones while driving? Put everyone's past sins on there.

We hope our legislators will vote against this turkey if it gets to the floor. We're not asking them to be soft on drunken drivers, we're asking them to be hard on people who want to waste the taxpayers' money on self-serving, grandiose posturing.