BEFORE ENDORSING NEW BILL, ZERO TOLERANCE OF PRESENT LAW SHOULD BE
GIVEN CHANCE

Editor, The Times:

The recent implementation of the .08 limit on blood alcohol, and the
accompanying stiffer penalties, was heralded as a new era in combating
driving under the influence.

Common sense prevailed and the law was created to meet the reality of
our everyday world. Unfortunately, by building a figurative outhouse
on a solid foundation, Sen. Mike Heavey, D-Seattle, could be obscuring
that accomplishment.

Heavey's bill is a perfect example of a Hollywood problem that has
recently invaded politics, a problem I call "sequalism." The thinking
goes, if it was lauded the first time around, it'll get the same
result the next time.

In his guest commentary (".08 - a license to kill," March 17), Heavey
declares that no one should drive after drinking - period - and that
.08 is too high a blood alcohol content, claiming that stiff penalties
should be enacted for blood-alcohol content between .02 and .08.
However, he cites no evidence or reasoning as to why this should be
done, or how many accidents, injuries or fatalities are the result of
a BAC at those levels.

His misleading commentary would have us believe that this range is
problematic and a direct cause of drunken-driving incidents.

The fact of the matter is that the people who are arrested or cause
accidents due to intoxicated driving are not going to care what the
limit is, and I've seen no statistics showing that those cases
routinely, often, or occasionally, fall below the .08 threshold.

Before considering his bill, I believe zero-tolerance enforcement of
the present law should first be given a chance.

Mike Kress, Seattle