The Road to Hell

Good friends, today I'd like to speak to the congregation about the Road to Hell.

 Specifically, brethren and sistern, I'd like to talk about the good intentions that are the pavement, yea, the very asphalt on that wide, wide road.

 What inspired today's sermon is the latest round of proposals for North Carolina to "get tough" on drunk driving. Whenever there's a alcohol-related traffic death in North Carolina, we hear that the laws aren't tough enough and demands to tighten up the law, especially by lowering the blood-alcohol level at which a driver is considered drunk. It used to be .10, then it was lowered to .08, now they're talking about lowering it to .07, .06, even .05.

 Now, nobody is questioning that the folks making these proposals have good intentions. But, good people, let us meditate upon the good intentions of those well-meaning souls in New York who set out to clean up the sin in that wicked city. Hizzoner the Mayor decided to use zoning laws to restrict strip clubs, X-rated bookstores, etc.--what the zoning regulations describe as "adult businesses," and the rest of us describe as "working late at the office, I swear it." So one nudie bar decided to get around the regs in a unique way: they opened the place to children.

 See, there's apparently no law in Sin City that says tots can't get in to see nekkid women. They just can't enter any place that serves liquor without being accompanied by a parent or guardian. Needless to say, the city Department of Social Services has threatened to take custody away from any parent who takes Junior to see Bubbles McBoomBoom at the T & A Lounge. Fine, say the owners. We didn't say we WANTED toddlers in the joint. But hey, once we say they can come in, we're no longer an adult business, and you can't touch us.

 Just goes to show that for sheer ingenuity, you can't beat American business. I can't wait for wet T-shirt night at Chuck E. Cheese.

 Let us read, dear friends, another lesson from the Book of Unintended Consequences. Late last year, out in Oakland, California, a bunch of folks from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) decided to take matters into their own hands and shut down a fur farm. (In case you're not familiar with PETA, they REALLY hate fur coats.) They accomplished their mission by smashing the cages and setting the cute little minks free. Of course, Oakland not being the natural habitat of the mink, hundreds of the poor critters were hit by cars or caught pneumonia. A similar group in England released a bunch of minks, which then had to be hunted down with dogs (the minks, not the animal rights activists) because the minks were decimating the local wildlife. Whoops! Guess they forgot the whole bit about "Nature, red in fang and claw." I can see it now: "Aw, isn't that cute, he's playing with that baby birdOH MY GOD!"

 Seriously, though, what does this have to do with drunk driving? Let's look at another effort to combat DWI, namely North Carolina's plan to confiscate the autos of habitual drunk drivers. The way the law works, any motorist caught driving drunk after his license has been revoked for DWI must forfeit the vehicle he is driving to the local school system. If the person is convicted, the school system gets to sell the vehicle. Drunk drivers lose their wheels, the school system makes money, great idea, right?

 Only problem is, it costs money to tow and store these vehicles. When the car sells, there are often liens to be paid off. Then figure in the fact that some of the vehicles confiscated are junkers that aren't worth the money it would cost to make them street-legal. The schools may very well lose money on the deal.

 Before we start rewriting DWI law, we need to look past our good intentions and ask the hard questions, like: is this going to do a bit of good? One University of North Carolina study says probably not, but our Lieutenant Governor, Dennis Wicker has responded to the report with "Liar, liar, pants on fire," or something like that. Are people with .07 and .08 blood-alcohol levels really the ones doing the killing? Is lowering the blood-alcohol level going to make the courts more reluctant to charge and convict when good ol' Charlie from next door gets popped with a .05 after having two beers at the office softball game? Who knows? But somebody needs to ask the questions so we know where we're going before we get on the road, or you never know what road we might be on.