"Bar Month" at OnMilwaukee.com is back for another round! The whole month of February, we're serving up intoxicatingly fun bars and club articles -- including guides, unique features, drink recipes and more. Grab a designated driver and dive in!

During his annual "State of the State" address last month, Gov. Jim Doyle proclaimed "It is time for us to confront the problems of drunk driving in this state."

Not surprisingly, the line drew applause. Not many politicians campaign on the "we need more wasted drivers" platform.

When Doyle continued, though, lawmakers responded differently.

"Let's work to allow law enforcement officers to set up controlled, reasonable sobriety checkpoints," Doyle said.

The applause quickly ended. In its place rose a low murmur of muffled groans and a few boos.

Sobriety checkpoints represent a controversial issue in Wisconsin, a state in which casual, responsible alcohol consumption and its dangerous cousin -- binge drinking -- are part of the culture.

Currently, Wisconsin is one of 12 states that does not allow police to set up roadblocks to investigate the possibility that operators are too impaired to drive. (The other states are Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington and Wyoming).

Many lawmakers and agencies like the American Civil Liberties Union would like to keep it that way. Though they recognize drunk driving as an important safety and public health issue, they fear that roadblocks are expensive and intrude upon constitutional rights. That is an opinion shared by civil libertarians and powerful lobby groups like the Wisconsin Tavern League.

"We urged the Governor and the legislature to focus on other means of enforcement. There have got to be other ways that don't impinge on the rights of innocent people than the "supsicion-less stop."

Supporters of sobriety checkpoints -- led by influential groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- counter with statistical data indicating a reduction in fatalities and reports of a "chilling" effect on dangerous drinking and driving behavior.

"Federal research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes and fatalities by up to 24 percent," said Laura Dean-Mooney, who is in her first year as MADD national president.

"Checkpoints are one of the most effective tools we have to deter drunk driving."

The American Beverage Institute respectfully disagrees with MADD's position.

"By calling for roadblocks and mandating breathalyzers for first-time offenders, regardless of their blood alcohol content level, MADD is ignoring the root cause of today's drunk driving problem -- hard core alcohol abusers," American Beverage Institute Managing Director Sarah Longwell said in a recent press release.

"Because they are highly visible by design and publicized in advance, roadblocks are all too easily avoided by the chronic alcohol abusers who comprise the core of today's drunk driving problem. That leaves adults who enjoyed a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ball game, or a champagne toast at a wedding to be harassed at checkpoints."

 Page 1 of 2 (view all on one page)

Next >>

9 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review.

Recent Talkbacks ...

Posted by brian_biernat on Feb. 12, 2009 at 4:42 p.m. (report)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Posted by Z_boy on Feb. 11, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (report)

Totally against this becoming a law! This type of stuff is becoming way too BIG BROTHER for me.

Posted by alba on Feb. 11, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. (report)

It's hard to believe this is allowed in so many other states. Someone once told me that driving is not a constitutional right though, and when you get a drivers license you allow for certain things like this. It is a very slippery slope though. This is one step away from allowing the police to search every house in order to find something illegal, or to scan everyones email for illegal activity.

Posted by AverageGuy on Feb. 11, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. (report)

I'm with Zipper. We don't even have enough money to run the current excessive programs in this state. Let's take a cue from the rest of the nation when there isn't enough money to go around, CUT programs or spending. Citizens have to do it, why does government not get the clue?

Posted by Southern_Ex_pat on Feb. 11, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. (report)

This is a fascist law. Count me against it.