ROANOKE TIMES 

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, March 14, 1994                   TAG: 9403160005
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

DRUNKEN DRIVERS

DURING THEIR gubernatorial race last year, Republican George Allen and Democrat Mary Sue Terry dueled as to who would be "tougher" on drunken driving.

He won; she lost - the election, that is.

But Allen has yet to demonstrate that he views this problem as seriously as do most Virginia citizens - and the majority of Virginia's legislators.

For three years in a row, the General Assembly has passed a bill to provide for on-the-spot revocation of a drunken driver's license. In 1992 and again in 1993, the administrative-revocation legislation got caught up in sappy political games that kept it from becoming law.

This year, it's part of a comprehensive anti-drunken-driving package pushed primarily by House Majority Leader Dick Cranwell of Vinton - but Allen has hinted he may veto it.

That would be worse than sappy; it would be shameful. On-the-spot confiscation of a drunken driver's license will save lives. It has to be enacted to work.

In 33 other states that have administrative-revocation laws, this swift and sure punishment for intoxicated drivers has proved one of the most effective actions that government can take to get would-be killers off the road, and also to discourage others from driving while drinking.

Allen questions the fairness of revoking licenses without court action, but the administrative process has been deemed constitutional in other states. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Along with a provision reducing the blood-alcohol-content limit for minors, to achieve virtually zero tolerance for under-age drinking and driving, the so-called "booze it, lose it" provision is the most-needed portion of the '94 legislature's anti-drunken-driving package.

It is far more important than a provision reducing the blood-alcohol-content limit for adults from .10 to .08. This misguided revision will do more to criminalize more people than to get truly dangerous drunks off the road.

If Allen vetoes the package, or attempts to amend it to eliminate the administrative-revocation provision, he'll hold back potentially effective efforts to deter hard-core drinkers who shamelessly and repeatedly threaten lives on Virginia highways.

The credibility of the governor's promise to get "tough on crime" - drunken driving, recall, remains a crime - is on the line.

Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1994 


 by CNB