Fighting a National Epidemic

CONGRESS MUST ADDRESS ISSUE OF DRUGGED DRIVING

In recent weeks, both columnist Steve Sebelius and the Review-Journal
editorial page have criticized my attempt to urge states to pass laws
against drugged driving.

I would like to say that I am proud of my sponsorship of Nevada's
drugged driving law in 1999. As a state senator, I was inspired to
take action after 8-year old Brittany Faber came to me following the
loss of her father from a drugged driver. In 1997, William Faber was
killed after dropping off his daughter at school in Henderson by a
driver who was high on marijuana. At that time, prosecutors could not
punish the driver because there was not a standard for drivers with
drugs in their system as there is for drunken drivers. The driver's
sentence resulted in a six-month house arrest, hardly a punishment or
deterrent for taking a life in such a careless and preventable manner.

It is important to recognize that since 2000 in Nevada alone, 46
percent of all traffic fatalities were alcohol and/or drugged driving
related. In fact, 60 percent of the approximately 600 people arrested
for driving under the influence in Clark County so far this year were
under the influence of drugs. According to the National Highway
Traffic and Safety Administration, illegal drugs are used by
approximately 10 to 22 percent of drivers involved in all motor
vehicle crashes in the U.S. In 2002, 9.1 percent of all U.S. traffic
fatalities were drug related. These are just some of the cold hard
facts on drugged driving.

Senate Bill 481 passed overwhelmingly in the Nevada Senate by a vote
of 20-1, and the Nevada Assembly by 40-1. It was signed by the
governor and took effect June 11, 1999. Since that time, the
legislation has not been altered despite two legislative sessions and
special sessions. The stated intention of the law was clear, and
Nevada joined nine other states to combat drugged driving. Today,
according to Gary Booker, deputy district attorney, this law is used
successfully by the Clark County district attorney's office to
prosecute drugged drivers every day.

My recently proposed federal legislation in Congress (H.R. 3907) seeks
to combat the growing problem of drugged driving. First, it raises the
awareness of drugged driving at the national level by providing funds
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for research on
the prevention, detection and prosecution of drugged drivers.

Secondly, the bill would encourage states to develop their own plans
to address and combat drugged driving. Unlike federal mandates on
states such as the national 0.08 blood alcohol level for detecting
drunken drivers, my bill does not set national standards on drugged
driving. The proposed legislation allows states to decide what their
own drugged driving standards, measurements and even prosecution
requirements ought to be.

When it comes to fighting a national epidemic to save lives, it is
prudent to begin a dialogue and debate at the federal level. The fact
is, many American lives can be saved if states adopt their own plans
for fighting, preventing and prosecuting drugged drivers.

It does not seem fair to me that a young girl has to grow up without
her father who could still be here today if not for the reckless
actions of a drugged driver. No one can deny the intentions of this
legislation to save lives, and prevent the grief and anguish suffered
by Brittany and her family, along with the many families who have lost
loved ones to drugged drivers. It is time to begin the debate on a
national program to end drugged driving.