I disagree with the policies endorsed by the Collegian's editorial yesterday. Of course I concur that drunken driving is a problem, but there are fairer and more effective ways to go about solving it than lowering the legal BAC threshold or using police checkpoints.

The problem with laws based on blood alcohol content is that BAC does not have a one-to-one correlation with impairment. It would be nice if one's ability to drive were so easily quantified, but many other factors are involved. Evidence that a person with a BAC of .08 is significantly more likely to cause accidents than someone with no alcohol whatsoever in his or her system is questionable at best. Statistics from the ideologues at MADD should have been approached with more skepticism.

Coupling police checkpoints with lowering the BAC threshold is especially troublesome. If the threshold is going to be that low, people should at least not be stopped unless there is reason, based upon their driving, to believe that they are drunk. I know the courts disagree with me here, but sobriety checkpoints are nothing more than fear tactics that violate the Fourth Amendment, and should not be tolerated in a free society.

Both of these policies depend on deterrence, but common sense should tell us that deterrents are not very useful on people whose judgment has been diminished by alcohol. Enforcement resources would more effectively be used patrolling roads looking for people who are driving in a way that suggests intoxication.