Poll: Should Minnesota Lower the Legal Drinking Age?

In 1984 President Reagan signed the Uniform Drinking Age Act, requiring all states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 or face reductions in their federal highway funding. Since 1995, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have complied.

But now, Minnesota lawmakers are considering legislation that would roll back the state’s legal drinking age to 18. State Representative Phyllis Kahn has proposed legislation that would allow individuals over 18 to be served alcohol in bars and restaurants. The bill would still ban retail sales of alcohol for people under 21.

Kahn—whose district area includes the University of Minnesota—argues that serving alcohol to young adults in public would teach them to drink responsibly and reduce binge drinking. And she notes that the measure would be good for the economy as it would likely increase sales in bars and restaurants.

Supporters claim that many 18- to 20-year-olds already drink, especially on college campuses, and making alcohol legally available to this group could decrease the “forbidden fruit” allure of drinking.

But critics point to studies linking a lower drinking age to increased traffic crashes and to research that shows teens and young adults respond more adversely to alcohol than older adults. In addition, MADD and the National Traffic Highway Administration (NHTSA) estimate that raising the drinking age to 21 nationally has saved approximately 900 lives per year.

If the bill is approved by the Minnesota legislature it will take effect in August.

 Loading ...

Continue Reading...

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommends That All States Lower the Per Se DUI Legal Limit From 0.08% BAC to 0.05%

The motivation for the change is to reduce the number of road deaths caused by drinking and driving. According to NTSB estimates, drunk driving accounts for a third of all road deaths.

NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said before a vote by the panel on a staff report, "This is critical because impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the United States."

Some of the more recent actions that have reduced drinking related deaths are federal and state policies, tougher law enforcement, and stepped up national advocacy. The NTSB staff report estimates, lowering the per se BAC for drinking and driving to .05% would save 500-800 lives annually. In the last 30 years, 440,000 lives have been lost in the United States due to drinking and driving.

Although the individual per se BAC limits are set by individual states, the federal government can be very persuasive convincing states to lower their BAC limit. For instance, the federal government can require such laws before dispersing highway funds.

Not all groups approved of the measure, most notably the American Beverage Institute (ABI). Sarah Longwell, managing director, stated the measure was "ludicrous" and "would criminalize perfectly responsible behavior." Her position is that the NTSB should focus on drivers with higher BAC percentages.

Interestingly, Ms. Longwell refers to MADD as "anti-alcohol activists" and questions whether the science has changed from 10 years ago, when MADD pushed for the .10% BAC standard. This question was not answered, nor was the NTSB number that the move will save 440,000 lives a year explained.

The two positions, between the NTSB and ABI, lacks firm numbers for either of their positions. What is missing is a study that measures the BAC for impaired drivers who were responsible for road collisions resulting in death. The study must be that specific- often when looking at the raw data of studies we find that the stated conclusion does not match the underlying data.

The NTSB also pushed for states to act more proactively in confiscating drivers licenses, installing IIDs for first time offenders, and using "passive alcohol sensors" that can measure alcohol in the air during a traffic stop.

The motivation behind the law is clear- to end drunk driving deaths. However, it is unclear whether the law matches the motivation. That is, without firm data indicating the number of deaths associated with impaired drivers at a certain BAC, then it is a leap of faith, and not data, that justifies lowering the per se limit to save lives.

However, the ABI, and other organizations involved in the hospitality industry, have an interest in keeping patrons comfortable having a drink or two with their meals. Otherwise, they may be too concerned with not creating a criminal record than to have a drink or two.

Mental affects from alcohol affect a person's decision making, including ordering dessert, for instance. From there, the patron may leave a bigger tip, or have one last over-priced after dinner drink. I suppose the perfect per se BAC limit is one which allows for impairment by over-priced alcohol, but does not affect their ability to avoid a church bus on the way home.

The problem with reasonable, scientifically based alcohol legislation is that there is a lot of power in the illogical, emotionally based impacts of drinking and driving victims. The NTSB chose Tuesday, today, to announce the legislation as the 25th Anniversary of the Carrollton Kentucky bus collision which resulted in the deaths of 27 people and 34 more were injured. The bus, which was a modified tour bus from an old school bus, contained members of the Assembly of God church on their way to Kings Island theme park. It is, undeniably, a tragedy.

Careful arguments must be made as the battleground is littered with emotional landmines. I propose that the proper change to save lives does not involve reducing the per se limit of 0.08%, but education to help people understand exactly what it is to be 0.08% BAC, or even a 0.04% BAC. Because regardless of the per se law in 1988, the impaired driver in the Carrollton collision was 0.24% BAC, and a 0.15%, 0.10%, 0.08% or even 0.05% per se law wouldn't have made a lick of difference to those that survived the crash, but were killed by the resulting fire that engulfed the interior of the bus.

Continue Reading...

A Lower Credit Score…Because of a DUI?

As I’ve mentioned ad nauseum in the past, legislators continue to fall over each other dreaming up newer and harsher penalties for drunk driving.   Result: the costs of getting a DUI have become astronomical — even for a first offense with a relatively low blood alcohol reading.  

Just for starters:  car impound fees, bail, attorneys’ fees, criminal fines and court costs, charges for alcohol education classes, installation and maintenance of interlock devices, costs for community service enrollment, and so on.  And then there are the hidden costs of a DUI conviction:  increased auto insurance premiums, lost days of work, possible loss of job, suspended or cancelled professional licensing, loss of security clearance, loss of child custody, inability to rent a car, etc., etc.  See, for example, What Does a DUI Cost?, where the Texas Department of Transportation estimates the total costs of a DWI arrest and conviction — for a first time offender with no accident involved — to range from $9,000 to $24,000.  And with hidden costs, it can go much higher.

But here’s a new one I hadn’t heard about before…

How a DUI Can Tank Your Credit

Oct. 27 – A conviction for driving under the influence can wreck more than your car: it can damage your credit.

While a DUI (or DWI — driving while intoxicated) won’t show up directly on your credit report or get factored into your score, the financial ramifications could hit your credit hard.

"A DUI can have a catastrophic effect on your finances," says Carole Walker, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association. "So, take that into account before you get behind the wheel."

Even for a first drunken driving arrest with no wreck or injuries, costs can rack up quickly. For example, the total cost of a drunken driving conviction in Illinois averages about $16,500, according to the 2014 Illinois DUI Fact Book, published by the state.

"The steep cost and the fact that most DUI expenses can be paid with a credit card make it easy to get deep in debt if your finances are shaky," says Kevin Haney, a credit industry expert and publisher of SavvyonCredit.com…

In a best-case scenario, a person who gets arrested for driving while intoxicated might have the funds to cover costs, and the conviction might have no effect at all on their credit report or score, Haney says.  However, in other cases, a drunken driving conviction can lead to credit consequences that can range from minor to major, Haney says.

For example:  Charging big expenses could lead to a dip in score. Using your card to pay thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, alcohol education tuition and fines will increase your utilization ratio, which is the amount of available credit you’re using, Haney says. That can cause your credit score to drop, he says.

The amount owed on accounts makes up 30 percent of your FICO score, according to myFICO.com. The FICO score takes into account factors such as total amount owed, how many accounts have balances and whether you’re close to maxing out cards.

Unpaid fines could get sent to collections. If you’re unable to pay your fines, the county likely will send the debts to a collection agency. A collection on your credit report can have a major negative impact on your score, according to Haney. Collections stay on your credit report for seven years, and the FICO score weighs recent collections more heavily.

A judgment could hurt your credit. A judgment can show up on your credit as a public record and can hurt your score, Haney says. Judgments stay on your credit report for seven years, whether they’ve been paid or not.
A conviction can kill your income.

In the short term, a driving-under-the-influence arrest and conviction can affect your ability to get to work and keep your job, Walker says. And no job equals no income to pay fees, fines or credit card bills…

As some DUI defense attorneys are fond of saying, you may be better off facing a felony burglary charge than getting nailed for a misdemeanor DUI.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 1:52 pm and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...