DRUGGED DRIVERS AN EQUAL THREAT

Wisconsin punishes driving while drunk but not driving while drugged. The
Legislature should change that by making it illegal to drive while on an
illegal drug.

To clarify, drugged drivers are not currently getting off scot-free in
Wisconsin. They can still be prosecuted for driving while impaired, if
impairment can be proved, and reckless or negligent driving, if their
performance on the road warrants arrest.

But there is no specific prohibition against driving with illegal drugs in
your system as there is against driving while legally drunk. Fail a breath
or chemical test for alcohol in your system, and you're in big legal
trouble. Drive with heroin in your system, and the law is much less clear.
That's a significant and regrettable difference.

Consider that repeated drunken driving convictions can bring treatment
requirements, loss of driver's license and stricter standards for the
amount of alcohol permitted in your system. There are no similar provisions
for drugged driving, unless impairment can be proved.

Moreover, consider the case of a drunken driver who crashes into another
car and kills someone. Homicide by drunken driving is a felony carrying a
penalty of up to 40 years in prison. Now consider the case of a driver on
cocaine who crashes into another car and kills someone. It is likely that
the stiffest charge a prosecutor could use is homicide by negligent
driving, which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison.

Wisconsin ought to examine what other states have done to prohibit driving
while drugged. Nine states have general laws against drugged driving. Two
more prohibit drivers younger than 21 from driving while on illegal drugs,
and five prohibit drug addicts from driving while drugged.

Of the nine states with general laws against drugged driving, Nevada is the
only one that sets standards for the allowable level of an illegal drug in
a driver's blood or urine. For example, cocaine in the blood exceeding a
level of 50 nanograms per milliliter is a violation of Nevada's law. The
standards vary according to the drug.

This is the same model used to prohibit drunken driving. In Wisconsin, for
example, the law prohibits a blood-alcohol level exceeding .10 for adult
drivers on a first offense.

The eight other states with general laws against drugged driving -
including Wisconsin neighbors Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois - have adopted a
zero-tolerance policy: Driving with any amount of an illegal drug in your
system is a violation. Zero-tolerance avoids the fact that there is no
widely agreed upon standard for how much of what kind of drug can cause the
impairment of a driver.

Whether Wisconsin establishes standards for the level of drugs in a
driver's system or adopts a zero-tolerance policy, the state should pass a
drugged driving law to bring the penalties for driving while on drugs in
line with the penalties for driving while drunk.

State Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, is preparing a drugged driver bill,
prompted by a Milwaukee case in which a driver on cocaine ran a red light
and crashed into a car. The driver pleaded no contest to homicide by
negligent use of a motor vehicle and received a two-year sentence, plus 20
months on a conviction for reckless driving causing injury.

Clearly, driving while on illegal drugs can threaten public safety just as
driving while drunk can. Wisconsin should strive to protect its citizens
from drunken drivers and from drugged drivers. The law should reflect that
intent.