Indiana's obsession with alcohol legislation

Indiana has a long history of problems with alcohol.

Not problems with the over-imbibing of alcohol, per se. Rather, we, as a conservative, traditional state, have always had a complex relationship with the idea of alcohol being sold, distributed and consumed, period.

All of-age students are well aware of the current (and maddening) Indiana law prohibiting the sale of carry-out alcohol on Sundays (except at breweries and wineries).

On top of that, according to a recent article in the Indianapolis Star, we’re the only state in the nation that heavily regulates the sale of cold beer.

Currently, you can buy a cold beer in bars, restaurants and liquor stores. If you’re out getting groceries at a supermarket, drugstore or gas station, though, you have to buy your beer warm. Those who support the law argue that selling warm beer (rather than already-cold, ready-to-drink beer) at these places discourages drunk driving and underage drinking.

These grocery stores, drugstores, and convenience stores are allowed to sell cold wine and wine coolers (with higher alcohol content than most beers), but cold beer is inexplicably prohibited. Frankly, if I were a young teen or an alcoholic desperate for an alcoholic beverage, a cold wine cooler would suit me fine.

What this law really comes down to is a power play by the liquor lobby. They argue that allowing grocery, convenience and drug stores to sell cold beer would put liquor stores out of business.

That argument is shaky. Very few people would stop going to the liquor store just because the grocery store sells a few cheap cold beers — definitely not enough people to drive whole stores out of business.

This law, and the law prohibiting alcohol sales on Sundays, is not really here for safety or for the good of citizens at this point. These archaic laws exist because liquor stores want to keep their monopoly on cold beer, and restaurants and bars want to keep their monopoly on Sunday drinks.

A group of Indiana residents is currently suing Indiana to overturn the cold beer law, but local legal experts predict that their suit won’t amount to much.

Meanwhile, there’s also proposed legislation in Indiana to lower Indiana’s legal threshold for blood alcohol while driving to 0.05% (the current limit is 0.08%).

To give you some sense of what a 0.05% blood alcohol level adds up to, women and men weighing less than 120 pounds, for example, could reach it with one drink.

The issue that many have with this proposed legislation, a reservation that I share, is that it’s reactionary, rather than preventative. It’s one of those laws that’s supposed to look like it’s doing something, even when it’s not. It’s the legal equivalent of busywork.

Since the legal blood alcohol level for driving was lowered to 0.08 from 0.10 in 2001, alcohol-related traffic accidents have decreased by only 3%. However, authorities cite that some of this also comes from increased enforcement of general traffic safety and seatbelt laws.

Any law that will save lives is certainly admirable. But when the relationship
between a law and the results it seeks is already tenuous at best, why continue to tighten said law? Will 0.05% really save more lives than 0.08%?

Or will it just result in citations issued to petite men and women who’ve had a glass of wine with dinner, and greater profits in litigation and ticket money for the state?

If you really want to save lives on the road, rather than pandering to a conservative base and lobby groups, why not focus on risky behaviors that are currently more
prevalent than drunk driving?

Distracted driving, especially when texting is involved, is responsible for more crashes and deaths among teens and young adults than drunk driving, and is more widespread — approximately half of all teens and young adults admit to doing it.  In all age groups, it’s been found to be almost twice as dangerous as drunk driving.

I’ve only met two people who were ever pulled over for distracted driving. Neither person was cited for it, even though statistically, their behavior was more dangerous than someone driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.05% or above.

Multiple studies have found that driving while texting, checking email, or looking at a phone is far more risky than driving while drunk or even high. And yet, although we widely condemn drunk driving, it’s only within the past year or so that we and our government have even begun to approach distracted driving.

A driver who texts is still considered more morally upright than a driver above the legal blood alcohol level, even though the driver who texts is more dangerous.

I guess the point I’m getting at is that Indiana’s (and, on a larger scale, America’s) need to pander to a conservative base and to interest and lobby groups is holding us back from really taking steps to address our complex relationship with alcohol.

In lieu of taking a real look at what will keep Indiana residents truly safe, we’re arguing over 0.03%, the temperature of a bottle of beer, and which days of the the week you’re allowed to buy a six-pack.

These issues, when looked at this way, are very obviously nitpick-y placations. They’re silly little clauses that make constituents think something is being done, even though their effectiveness is questionable.

Rather than putting all of this money and effort toward tightening the legislative noose around alcohol, why don’t we instead increase road surveillance and punishment for dangerous behaviors that are actually happening?

I’m not a state legislator (for good reason), so I’m not privy to the tiny details about all of this, and any solution I can offer is admittedly a broad, uninformed one.

But I just can’t get past the feeling that Indiana has made alcohol into our scapegoat, and that we’re milking it for empty financial and political profit, rather than actually
facing the issues it creates.

­— kelfritz@indiana.edu