California had the biggest numerical drop in DUI related deaths, recording 117 fewer fatalities than last year. Texas followed with 108 fewer deaths and Arizona drunk driving fatalities dropped by 63 deaths. A spokesperson for the California Governors Highway Safety Association cited gains from state law enforcement agencies conducting more than 1000 sobriety checkpoints last year and encouraging motorists to call 911 spotting someone suspected of driving under the influence in California.

States that saw an increase in alcohol impaired deaths were Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Are you searching for a DUI Lawyer or DWI Attorney?

Lara Buys, 22, was driving under the influence in California when she was involved in an accident that killed her passenger. The prosecutor was willing to recommend probation in the case until he checked Buys’ MySpace page and saw images posted after the accident featuring the defendant with a glass of wine. In addition, there were comments joking about drinking. The images depicted Buys as having a good time rather than trying to deal with issues of drinking and driving and, instead of probation, she received a two-year jail sentence.

Another southern California DUI defense attorney instructed his client, Jessica Binkerd, to take down her personal pages following an alcohol related accident. She did not and the attorney was reportedly “blindsided” immediately before pre-sentencing by photos taken after the wreck of Binkerd drinking and offering tequila shots. Binkerd was sentenced to 5 years in jail.

Prosecutors do not appear to be intensively scouring the internet for personal web pages though relatively quick searches as well as tips can reveal sites with damaging character evidence. In a sign of the times, the photos and notations found are being increasingly used by prosecutors to influence judge or jury during cases of driving while intoxicated.

If you have been arrested for drunk driving it is important that you hire a DUI attorney to represent you on your drunk driving charge and to advise you of the consequences of your actions after your DUI/DWI arrest.

Examples of the creative aspect of the promotion are evidenced by an elf performing a field sobriety test and Santa being placed in a squad car.

In addition to the social awareness generated by the posters, NHTSA hopes increased law enforcement will reduce drunk driving during the holidays.

To view the Holiday Drunk Driving Posters posters, click here.

The beer companies are responding to a trend among younger drinkers to mix energy drinks, such as Red Bull, with alcohol. The new beer and caffeine products typically have substantially higher alcohol content than regular beer. Besides caffeine, the energy drinks can contain herbal stimulants, further masking the effects of alcohol. A study published in ‘Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research’ showed that the drinkers reported feeling fewer symptoms of intoxication while drinking the caffeine laden drinks even though coordination tests showed they were indeed impaired.

While adults have long mixed caffeinated drinks like Coke with alcohol, there is concern about the overt marketing of new energy drinks to younger drinkers. Another Anheuser-Busch product called Spykes was pulled from shelves after a storm of criticism. The 12 percent alcohol drinks offered both fruit and chocolate flavors favored by young people. Critics of the energy drink trend call beer brewers “totally irresponsible.”

Drunken Driving Arrests Couldn't Curb a Danger

By Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, March 19, 2001

Lyle Eric Norbert has a problem when he gets behind the wheel of a car, police say.

Norbert, 41, of Suisun City has had his license suspended six times. And although he has been arrested four times on suspicion of drunken driving, he has only one such conviction -- a misdemeanor -- because he "never hurt anybody," his attorney said.

"I'm just too drunk, and I made a big mistake," Norbert told California Highway Patrol officers after leading them on a chase in 1999. "I always run from the police, but I always get caught because I'm slow."

His luck changed early Wednesday, police say, when Norbert once more failed to stop for CHP officers near El Cerrito, this time leading them on a high- speed chase into Berkeley. It ended when Norbert's rented 2001 Pontiac Bonneville ran a red light and smashed into a car driven by Theodore Abraham Resnick, 33, of San Francisco. Resnick died instantly.

Now, Norbert is being held without bail on numerous charges that include murder, enraging many who wonder how the criminal justice system couldn't keep a problem driver like Norbert off the road.

"Considering his driving record, one would think that one would not have to be convicted of a felony in order to undergo some serious form of punishment," Resnick's brother, Don Resnick, 36, of Sylvania, Ohio, said yesterday, hours after he and his family buried his brother in Staten Island, N.Y., where the siblings grew up.

"Speaking with my family, we've talked about how driving is not a right in this country -- it's a privilege," he said. "This man has abused this privilege way beyond the capacity that a person should be able to."

A review by The Chronicle of court and state Department of Motor Vehicles records shows that authorities tried to keep Norbert off the street.

Norbert, who has previous convictions for weapons and drugs, was able to drive after four drunken-driving arrests because he either made bail or failed to show up in court or for counseling sessions, records show. And in at least two cases, Norbert pleaded guilty to lesser charges of reckless driving, resulting in fines and probation.

That allowed Norbert, time and again, to get behind the wheel of a car. In some cases, the cars were rented by others. In the car involved in the fatal crash, police are not saying who rented the vehicle only that it was not Norbert.

Norbert's longtime attorney, Pam Herzig of San Francisco, declined to comment on her client's driving history after he was charged with murder Friday.

SIX LICENSE SUSPENSIONS

Drunken driving, usually treated as a misdemeanor if no one is seriously hurt or killed, becomes a felony on the fourth conviction within seven years.

But Norbert has only one drunken driving conviction on his record -- a misdemeanor, since no one was hurt or killed -- even though the DMV has suspended his license six times since 1997 for having an excessive blood- alcohol level.

An Oakland traffic officer, echoing sentiments by others in law enforcement, said there was just no way an overburdened criminal justice system could deter a problem driver who persisted in driving a car -- any car.

"We've got more people driving on suspended licenses in the East Bay than ever before," said the officer, who declined to be named. "We have no control over them buying a $500 vehicle from a private party."

Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, tried unsuccessfully to pass what he called a "Deadly Driver" bill in 1997 after a man with a history of driving violations caused a six-car pileup that left an Antioch mother dead.

Torlakson said legislation that would combine jail time and rehabilitation programs could make a difference. He acknowledged, however, that "hard core" cases like that of Norbert could render such programs useless.

Norbert's driving problems date back to Halloween 1997, when he crashed a white Ford Mustang into five parked cars near 26th and Noe streets in San Francisco and fled the scene, according to police.

"I don't know who was driving," Norbert told police, his eyes bloodshot. Although he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving, he pleaded guilty to reckless driving and was placed on three years' probation.

On Jan. 24, 1999, Norbert, driving another Mustang, was spotted by the CHP speeding on eastbound Interstate 80 in Crockett. Once again, he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving -- his pupils dilated, his eyes red and watery, the CHP report said.

He made bail and, seven days later, led the CHP on a 16-mile, 12-minute pursuit on I-80 in a rented 1999 Pontiac Grand Am at speeds of up to 90 mph. Norbert, allegedly drunk, whizzed past the toll booth at the Carquinez Bridge and was rammed three times by the CHP before he was stopped near his home, records show.

JUDGE EXPRESSED CONCERN

In that case, Herzig asked in court that Norbert be released on his own recognizance, saying that her client would be willing not to drive and that his girlfriend would keep the keys away from him.

But a wary Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Samuel Mesnick, asked: "How will you enforce that? The Great Arm in the sky? Two DUIs one week apart does not sound like much control. The driving sounds like somebody was lucky not to be hurt."

Mesnick set bail at $10,000. In July 1999, Norbert pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of reckless driving for the Jan. 24, 1999, incident and was fined $275.

On Nov. 3, 2000, Norbert logged another drunken-driving arrest while driving a rented Daewoo Leganza. He failed to make a court appearance, and a $30,000 warrant was issued for his arrest. He also failed to show up in court for the Jan. 31, 1999, incident. A no-bail warrant was issued, and his probation was revoked.

After one of his arrests, Norbert was angry but resigned. Spewing profanity at CHP officers, he said: "You got me."

Chronicle Staff Writer Jaxon Van Derbeken contributed to this report.

E-mail Henry K. Lee.

See Article

Ohio's drunken driving law challenged by critics who claim it violates protections against being tried for the same crime twice is

constitutional, Franklin County Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 5.

The court, in a 2-1 ruling, said authorities had the right to prosecute and punish Brian L. Elfrink for drunken driving after his license was suspended following his arrest. The immediate suspension of the drunken driver's license "is an effective way to provide immediate protection to the public from that driver," the court said. "The driver is denied the opportunity to drive at the point in time when he has demonstrated himself to be a danger to others as well as to himself."

Since the law went into effect Sept. 30, 1993, it has been attacked as violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy on grounds

that drivers are, in essence, punished twice for the same offense. The first punishment occurs when the license is seized following the arrest followed by prosecution of the driver in the courts.

Elfrink was arrested more than a year ago after he was found by Hilliard police passed out behind the wheel of his car. After he failed sobriety tests, his license was suspended for 90 days.

The suspension was based on the law's automatic license suspension procedures that require a suspension if drivers refuse to have their blood

alcohol level tested or if the test exceeds the legal limit.

After the suspension was imposed, Elfrink faced prosecution in Franklin County Municipal Court.

The trial court rejected Elfrink's challenge to the law. Then, Elfrink pleaded no contest and he was sentenced.The suspension varies, and allows the driver to appeal the suspension. If the driver is found guilty of the drunken driving charge, the time of thesuspension imposed following the driver's arrest is credited toward any suspension imposed by the court.

Elfrink argued the immediate suspension of his

The Ohio and U.S. Constitutions bar a second prosecution for the same offense and multiple punishments for the same offense.

The appeals court said immediate suspension of a driver's license followed by prosecution of the driver is one proceeding, "part of a coordinated legal response to the threat of the drunk driver."

The court said, in previous rulings, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined pretrial license suspensions are allowed to protect the public from drunken drivers. The high court also has determined that a license to drive is a privilege, not a right.

Judge Donna Bowman dissented.

"While no on can quarrel with the goal of protecting the public from drunk drivers, as well as the goal of deterring those who drive while intoxicated, these goals, however, valid, cannot infringe on individuals' constitutional rights," she said.

She said the immediate suspension of the driver's license followed by the prosecution of the driver are separate proceedings, and prosecution should be barred following the suspension. She also said while the law's intent is to deter

drunken driving, "its effect is to punish."

California Drunk Driving Home Page - http://www.well.com/user/edwardo

MORE WOMEN DRIVE DRUNK

The drunk behind the wheel is increasingly - and more often fatally - a woman.

While men account for the vast majority of arrests across the nation for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, an increasing percentage of those charged are women, according to federal crime statistics.

Across the nation, too, women are the drivers in an increasing percentage of fatal traffic incidents in which alcohol was involved.

The trend has surfaced as total DWI arrests and fatal accidents involving alcohol have been declining.

Experts say the trend is to be expected as women have taken a more equal role in society.

"More women are drinking than used to be," said Herbert Moskowitz, editor of the Journal of Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, published by the University of Southern California, where he is a research psychologist.

"More importantly, more women are driving than used to be."

Along with sharing work stresses with men, Moskowitz and other researchers say, women also are sharing their drinking habits.

"It's another aspect of sexual equality," said H. Laurence Ross, a professor of sociology at the University of New Mexico and author of Confronting Drunk Driving.

Two other factors could be at work.

Men more so than women might be heeding the costs of getting caught driving drunk.

And experts point to a changing attitude by police toward drunken driving - and women drivers.

"I was a cop in New York City from '63 to '79," said James Fyfe, a professor of criminal justice at Temple University. "In the city at least, drunken driving was considered a quirk rather than a serious offense.

"That's changed. Police have become much more aware ... of how dangerous they (drunken drivers of both sexes) are."

Increased DUI arrests of women, he said, means "the death of chivalry."

"In large measure, it's the cops arresting them instead of taking them for a cup of coffee."

National data show these trends:

In 1982, 10.7 percent of the 1.4 million people arrested DUI were women. That figure rose to 13.8 percent in 1992, when 1.3 million people were arrested for DUI.

The percentages are in annual editions of the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, published by the Justice Department.

In 1982, according to a study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, or NIAAA, women constituted 11.33 percent of the 17,137 "alcohol-involved" drivers in fatal traffic crashes.

In 1992, 14.58 percent of such drivers in 13,527 crashes were women.

Some local officials, who say they don't break down DUI incidents by sex, say they have not seen the trend.

Who are the drunken women drivers?

Carol Popkin, head othe women and transportation subcommittee of the National Academy of Sciences, has researched that.

She is director of research and planning for the substance-abuse service section of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources.

Her paper, "A Consideration of Factors Influencing Drinking and Driving by Women," appeared in a 1993 issue of the Journal on Alcohol, Drugs and Driving.

The few studies that exist, Popkin wrote, suggest they are likely to be unmarried, living alone, between the ages of 30 and 50, "are less likely to be screened as a high-risk driver and ... a high-risk problem drinker, are less likely to have a previous (drunken-driving arrest), and are less likely to have an arrest for public drunkenness."

But some studies, she wrote, "suggest that younger women, particularly those aged 21 to 24, are increasing their involvement in alcohol-related driving."

Why are women driving drunk?

"There are more women in the workplace," she said last week. "A lot of women are ... the only adult in households with small children. Those changes in roles influence the amount of driving that women do."

They have more money than before, she said, and less hesitation about drinking at lunch or after work.

But little research, she said, has focused on drunken women drivers.

"Women have traditionally been regarded as safer drivers, and not perceived as being part of the alcohol-involved population.

"Now that women are increasing their involvement ... in fatal and serious crashes, it means we have to look at some of these issues."

Alcohol Anonymous

Common Goal * Distinct Means

Recovery from alcoholism was a true miracle in 1939 when Alcoholics Anonymous entered the scene. Quite unlike today's world in which the recovery process, which has come to be identified with A.A., finds broad acceptance and is seen as common-place. Alcoholics Anonymous is most often described as a "self-help" program, even among the members of the Fellowship itself. This description, along with the "group therapy" nomenclature, has led to much confusion among professionals of all kinds, members of the media, writers in general, and the public at large. So much so that it has begun to displace the original concept in the minds of AA members, many who received their first description of AA through these "third party care-givers." In order to retain its own concept of its purpose and function, the time is upon the members of Alcoholics Anonymous to clarify their place in the alcoholism recovery experience.

"Self help," while an easily used description of AA is in actuality a misrepresentation of the recovery experience as provided by the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. A far more accurate description would be to present AA's program as a "spiritual help" or "self responsibility" program. While those using the self-help term do so with the very best of intentions, the common usage of that term implies a return to the age old idea of "will power."

It is at this early juncture that a difficulty begins for the potential recovering alcoholic who is headed, or being guided, in the direction of membership in Alcoholics Anonymous. Whole societies have sprung up due to this simple miscue. The alcoholic, who has sought a lifetime to exercise his or her own power, comes to Alcoholics Anonymous with the misconception that they must exercise this power. Self-empowerment appears to the newcomer to be the proper approach to the problem at hand.

In the professional setting this may well be the correct approach. There exists a contained environment, a vehicle to exert peer pressure, and professionals trained in determining whether the power exerted by the individual is focused in a reasonable direction. Behavior modification requires effort on the part of the patient and the medical/treatment approach places a great store on treating the symptoms first in order to stabilize the patient. This to good effect and purpose.

This approach, however, does not transfer well into the AA environment. Here the accurate description would be self responsibility. The responsibility falls to the individual to seek out the methods and actions which might be used to remain sober. While this takes every bit as much personal exertion as previously noted in the professional environment, its focus is quite different.

As is noted in the book, Alcoholics Anonymous, "defiance is the outstanding character of the alcoholic. The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions take this central fact into account in presenting a program of recovery to the potential member. They place the responsibility squarely on the individual for becoming aware of and modifying their behavior. Life, in general, and active alcoholism, in particular, become the disciplinarians. For most it takes little time to come to the realization that their battle is with, and within, themselves. With great wisdom, born out of tragic experiences, Alcoholics Anonymous refuses to offer the alcoholic an opportunity to create the illusion that the problem lies anywhere other than with themselves.

The Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous cannot suffer from this quirk of the alcoholic. Since it does not offer advice to the individual, it need not rely on the reporting done by the person. Again, the responsibility falls directly on the alcoholic trying to get sober.

And so it is that the ultimate goal of sobriety is met by considerably different means by Alcoholics Anonymous and those treating the illness professionally. Clearly each method has its place. There are those who require only one of the two methods, and legions of others who will take advantage of both. Each also has a responsibility to the other in this common endeavor. Both the professional and the AA member must work diligently to retain the integrity of their respective approaches while ensuring the autonomy of the other. For only through each being able to offer their particular approach can we be sure, with any degree of comfort, that all has been made available to those who suffer. It is not ours to determine where the doorways to sobriety ought to be, for we know not from which direction our fellows suffers will come. Ours is but to ensure that the doorway entrusted to our care is in its place, open to the next alcoholic wanting to gain entrance to our world of the spirit.

Americans steadily drank more and more whiskey during the early 1800s as supply increased and price tumbled. The annual per capita consumption of distilled spirits in 1830 was five gallonsnearly five times the amount people consume today. Like rum, whiskey was legal tender. People bartered with whiskey, paid

their taxes with whiskey, and on some occasions, paid their ministers' salaries with whiskey. It was also a dietary staplebecause the supply of other beverages was unreliable and water sometimes carried disease.

Liquor and socializing were closely entwined. Taverns and inns served as important community centers. They sheltered and fed travelers and often served as the local trading post, post

office, auction house, courtroom, polling place, recruiting and militia office, stage coach depot, and liquor retailer.

As whiskey consumption accelerated, drunkenness increased so markedly that it caused widespread community complaint and commentary. Family violence also became a more visible fact of life. Accounts of inebriate mothers neglecting their children spread, but these stories were outnumbered by incidents of wife and child beating.

These social ills coupled with rising incidents of alcohol-related illnesses alarmed many Americans, giving rise to a temperance movement between 1820 and 1850. The cries for temperancemoderate use of alcoholand for complete abstinence swept across the United States with a wave of religious revivals. Secular societies also organized, including the Washingtonians, a support group similar to today's Alcoholics Anonymous. As a result of the temperance movement, drinking rates sharply dropped from five gallons per capita in 1830 to less than two gallons in 1840.

DUI SUSPECT GIVES DRIVE-UP SERVICE TO THE TORONTO POLICE

A man who drove to a Toronto police station to find out if he was sober enough to be behind the wheel was charged with drunken driving.

Norman Newmarch, 60, arrived at a police station about 8:30 a.m. Sunday. Unaware he was being watched by police, he tried to park and nudged a cruiser, Constable Peter Irish said.

Irish said Newmarch drove to the station because he wanted to know if he had ''slept it off through the night'' and was fit to get behind the wheel.

Newmarch was given two blood-alcohol tests and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Legalization Increases Drug Use by Colombians

ANGEL GONZLEZ, a Bogota drug pusher, says his life isn't any easier since the Colombian government decriminalized drug use.

"They can't get the users, so the cops come down on us all the harder, and the 'taxes' are worse than ever," says Mr. Gonzalez. He is bitter after spending the previous night in jail - he didn't have money for the bribes the police call "taxes."

It has been a year since Colombia's Constitutional Court ruled that drug users may carry a personal dose of marijuana, cocaine, methadone, or hashish. The sale of drugs and use by minors or in public places is still prohibited.

In the past year, use of these drugs has risen, while the age of the users has fallen, says Gonzalez. Emergency-room physicians and drug consellors rehabilitation councilors agree.

Many Colombians deny theirs is a society of drug takers and blame the United States and other consuming countries for Colombia's drug problems. The US Drug Enforcement Administration says Colombia produces 80 percent of the world's cocaine and a third its heroin.

But the proportion of addicts in Colombian cities is approaching that of the US. Since the personal dose was legalized a year ago, more youths are treading Gonzalez's path.

The idea behind the Court's legalizing a personal dose was to force the government to find more effective methods than law enforcement for fighting drug abuse, such as education programs in the schools, says Constitutional Court Justice Carlos Gaviria, who wrote the decision.

"Drugs should be regulated in the same way as alcohol, which is not sold to minors," says Judge Gaviria. And no studies have been done that show that drug consumption has risen since he wrote the opinion, he points out.

Decriminalization of the personal dose is one cause, Dr. Uribe adds. The other is the international war on drugs, which causes more of the product to be kept in Colombia and sold domestically at ever-lower prices.

Many Colombians, such as former Prosecutor General Gustavo de Greiff, support worldwide decriminalization, which would eliminate the violent distribution chain. Legalized drugs mean lower prices and an end to the wars among distributors.

LOS ANGELES In her first public discussion of her arrest on drunk-driving charges two weeks before, former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers told a media gathering Tuesday morning, "I made a very big mistake."

It was a virtual echo of the contrite, matter-of-fact stance taken by actor Hugh Grant the night before on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," except that the crowd of TV criticsgathered at the Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel in Pasadena failed to duplicate for Myers the rousing ovation that greeted the British actor.

Myers was actually in town to promote her new permanent position as co-host (opposite staunch conservative Mary Matalin) on the nightly CNBC political talk show "Equal Time."

But the conversation inevitably got around to Myers' embarrassing arrest in Washington, D.C., on June 27 for driving under the influence. She was fined $2,000 and faces a possible year

in jail for the incident, which reportedly found her driving on the wrong side of the street when pulled over by police.

While saying she "didn't want to go into the details of what happened," Myers called the arrest "something that I regret, something that I think I can say with certainty will never happen again."

Myers had actually been scheduled to appear Monday on the same "Tonight Show" attended by Grant but had canceled last week on the advice of her lawyer, she said.

"I spoke to Jay (Leno), and he was, as always, extremely gracious about it," Myers said. "We agreed that when I come back to Los Angeles in August, maybe I'll do the show at that time. I can't say enough good things about Jay and the way he handled the situation."

After the official CNBC session concluded Tuesday morning, Myers huddled informally with a smaller group of reporters and admitted that even her time as a savvy media liaison for the White House failed to prepare her for the scrutiny.

"It's a shocking thing for me; I never thought I'd be in this situation," Myers said. "I've advised people in crisis situations, but it's obviously different when it's you."

Early History of The Automobile in California

Just before the turn of the century a new mode of transportation was seen and heard on the California landscape. It made an enormous racket like a rapidly popping string of firecrackers. It spewed smoke and stirred giant clouds of dust. It thrilled youngsters of the day and frightened animals. Some referred to it as a "horseless carriage." Others called it an "automobile."

It was to have a more profound and greater impact upon the state than any other single invention. It would eventually intrude into all California life causing deep and lasting changes.

Initially, the automobile was an instrument of adventure. A one-hour-and-five minute "scorch" over the 24 miles between Oroville and

Chico was hailed in the motoring column of the July 16, 1904, San Francisco News Letter as a "remarkable feat." Earlier, the San Francisco Town Talk of January 1901 described a 2,000-mile Northern California motor trip in which

a W.L. Rockett encountered "bottomless sand and mud." Dr. David Starr Jordan, in his autobiography, "The Days of a Man," tells of a motoring trip through Santa Clara Valley and up Mount Hamilton in the fall of 1899.

The early day "motor wagon" was also considered a dangerous instrument. Several California counties passed ordinances requiring motorists to pull to the side of the road and remain standing when horse drawn vehicles approached. One court decision characterized the new contraptions as "highly dangerous" when used on county roads. Ordinances prohibited operations of the horseless carriage at night.

It was not long before restrictive legislation, designed to protect horse and mule traffic from the noisy horseless carriage, faded into the past.

Speedy and convenient individual transit was welcomed as a benefit to mankind. Soon the muffled throb of the family auto and the rumble of the heavy duty truck lost their novelty. Elegant, stylish motor car advertisements soon dominated periodicals.

California's first half century of automobile legislation portrays a people striving to understand and to cope with their new motor car environment. Evidence abounds of legislation by intuition, of false starts and shifting emphasis, of experiments and of progress.

Essentially, Californians were anxious to police motorists and protect themselves with a formidable barrier of "rules of the road."

INITIAL LICENSING

State statutes of 1901 authorized cities and counties to license bicycles, tricycles, automobile carriages, carts, and similar wheeled vehicles.

The secretary of state was empowered in 1905 to register and license motor vehicles. This took the task from the counties and provided a uniform statewide registration system. Owners paid a $2 fee and were issued a circular tag. Later, tags were either octagonal or had scalloped edges.

Owners had to conspicuously display tags in the vehicle. In addition, they had to display the license number on the rear of the vehicle in 3-inch-high black letters on a white background. Some owners also painted numbers on headlamp lenses. Vehicle registration prerequisites included satisfactory lamps, good brakes, and either a bell or a horn.

The first vehicle to be registered under state law was a White Steamer owned by John D. Spreckels of San Francisco. His, however, was not the first automobile in California. The San Francisco Sunday Call, of May 11, 1902, recorded there were 117 motor vehicles in use in the city on that date. Six years earlier, the same paper reported that Charles L. Fir had owned the city's only horseless carriage. By 1905, registered vehicles in California totaled 17,015.

The secretary of state handled vehicle registrations from 1905 until 1913 when the legislature gave the task to the state treasurer. At the same time, the Engineering Department (predecessor of the Department of Public Works and forerunner of today's Department of Transportation) became custodian of vehicle records.

DMV BORN

The first Department of Motor Vehicles was created in 1915 with enactment of Senator F.S. Birdsell's "Vehicle Act of 1915." Vehicle registrations that year had climbed to 191,000.

In 1914, the state began issuing its first permanent license plates upon original registration of vehicles. The system was confirmed by the legislature in 1915. During the next four years, metal validating tags had to be bolted to the 1915 license plates. The tags had a bear in 1916; a poppy in 1917; a liberty bell in 1918; and a star in 1919. Amended in 1919, the permanent license plate law required annual issuance of plates starting in 1920.

In 1921, the powers and duties of the Department of Motor Vehicles were transferred to the Division of Motor Vehicles, part of the newly created Department of Finance. The move reflected recognition of the division's revenue producing status.

WINE IS HEALTHY SAYS NEW STUDY

Further debate is expected to result from a new study claiming that drinking between three and five glasses of wine per day fends off fatal illness. The findings are contained in he British Medical Journal and follow research carried out into the drinking habits of men in Denmark by the Institute of Preventive Medicine. It is possible than the tannin in red wine helps guard against heart disease, while alcohol generally may impact blood clotting. The study suggests that wine drinkers are healthier people than those who do not drink alcohol at all. The British Medical Association and UK government are worried that such claims will wrongly portray alcohol as a drug which prevents heart disease.

Mortality in Relation to Consumption of Alcohol:

13 years' Observations on Male British Doctors.

MDX Health Digest

OBJECTIVETo assess the risk of death associated with various patterns of alcohol consumption.

DESIGNProspective study of mortality in relation to alcohol drinking habits in 1978, with causes of death sought over the next 13 years (to 1991).

SUBJECTS12,321 British male doctors born between 1900 and 1930 (mean 1916) who replied to a postal questionnaire in 1978. Those written to in 1978 were the survivors of a long running prospective study of the effects of smoking that had begun in 1951 and was still continuing.

RESULTSMen were divided on the basis of their response to the 1978 questionnaire into two groups according to whether or not they had ever had any type of vascular disease, diabetes, or "life threatening disease" and into seven groups according to the amount of alcohol they drank. By 1991 almost a third had died. Those who reported drinking 8-14 units of alcohol a week (corresponding to an average of one to two units a day) had the lowest risks. The causes of death were grouped into three main categories: "alcoholaugmented" causes (6% of all deaths: cirrhosis, liver cancer, upper aerodigestive (mouth, oesophagus, larynx, and pharynx) cancer, alcoholism, poisoning, or injury), ischaemic heart disease (33% of all deaths), and other causes. The few deaths from alcohol augmented causes showed, at least among regular drinkers, a progressive trend, with the risk increasing with dose.

In contrast, the many deaths from ischaemic heart disease showed no significant trend among regular drinkers, but there were significantly lower rates in regular drinkers than in non-drinkers.

CONCLUSIONThe consumption of alcohol appeared to reduce the risk of ischaemic heart disease, largely irrespective of amount. Among regular drinkers mortality from all causes combined increased progressively with amount drunk above 21 units a week.

Among British men in middle or older age the consumption of an average of one or two units of alcohol a day is associated with significantly lower all cause mortality than is the consumption of no alcohol, or the consumption of substantial amounts. Above about three units (two American units) of alcohol a day, progressively greater levels of consumption are associated with progressively higher all cause mortality.

Public Records May Get Costly

A bill being considered by the state Senate would require payment far the actual cost of obtaining information under the California Public Records Act.

The measure also would eliminate the right of prisoners to get any information through the public records act.

Assembly Bill 1325, introduced by Paula Boland, R-Grenada Hills, passed the Assembly May 25 and refers to information provided by the state Department of Corrections.

"It is not an attempt to sell anything but to recover the actual costs of research," said Tip Kindel, representative for the Department of Corrections. '"We're not talking about closing the door to information. We want to put our correctional officers in the prone (not responding to information requests)."

The costs would be applied to commercial re-sellers of information, and patterned after a cost structure already used by the Department of Motor Vehicles, Kindel said.

Since October 1989, when AB 1779 passed, the Department of Motor Vehicles has been charging retrieval costs for access to its records, said DMV spokesman Bill Madison. AB 1779 states that no one can have access to addresses of private citizens. It was passed after actress Rebecca Schaeffer was stalked and gunned down at her Los Angeles apartment. Her killer obtained her address through DMV records.

DMV commercial accounts for access to other information can be set up by paying a $50,000 bond and a $250 appcation fee. Applicants Then pay for the cost per document, such as $5 per telephone request and $2 for each on-line access to vehicle registration,

Coming: A Drug to Sober You Up?

J. Raloff - Science News,Vol. 130 p. 358,

December 6, 1986

Millions will be saluting the coming holidays with more than one glass of their favorite libation. But when the party's over, is there anything available than coffee to clear the head and stabilize one's equilibrium? Not yet. But an intriguing new drug appears capable of erasing the intoxicating effects of too much alcohol. Not only is it providing insight into the mechanism of intoxication, but it - or a more potent analog - may also prove useful one day in therapeutically sobering up the dangerously drunk or in rehabilitating the alcoholic.

The drug, know as Ro15-4513, was originally synthesized by the Swiss-based Hoffman-La Roche pharmaceutical company for other purposes, explains Peter D. Suzdak, a researcher with the National Institute of Health. But about a year ago Hoffman-La Roche published a preliminary abstract reporting that the drug could block the sedation induced by ethanol. So Suzdak and five colleagues at the National Institutes of Health added it to a battery of drugs they were using to study alcohol's effects on the brain.

"Our data now suggests," he says, "that this drug will block the anti-anxiety or tension-reducing effects of ethanol. It might also block (additional) positive reinforcement effects of alcohol. If the reason an alcoholic drinks is because of these effects, then you might have a drug that's very useful in treating alcoholics."

At lease as important, he believes, are the clues the drug is providing about the cause of inebriation. In the brain there are pharmacological active sites known as GABA-benzodiazepine complexes. On one side of the site is a receptor that binds the neurotransmitter GABA (gammaaminobutyricacid). On the other side is a receptor for benzodiazepines, anxiety-reducing chemicals like the drug Valium. Between the two, Suzdak explains, is a channel through which chloride ions may pass. The binding of GABA or a benzodiazepine to one of the complex's receptors will open the channel and let chloride into the neuron - an action that "will shut down the firing of that neuron," explains Suzdak.

Though previous studies had shown that animals' behavioral response to ethanol, benzodiazepines and barbiturates could be similar, the reason had not been established. Research by Suzdak and his co-workers now indicates that the link may be behavioral changes mediated through the GABA system. Previous work had shown that ethanol greatly stimulates the GABA-benzodiazepine complex's uptake of chloride. Their new work, reported in the Dec. 5 Science, shows that administration of Ro15-4513 blocks ethanol's ability to stimulate the channel's uptake of chloride. Moreover, in doing so, it apparently block inebriation in rats - everything from the staggered gait to the release of tension.

This is "a very important link," Suzdak says. For the first time it "suggests that many of the behavioral effects of ethanol are due to changes in the chloride channel."

"Previously, people though there never was going to be a drug that could (reverse) alcohol's effects," notes neuroscientist George Koob at the Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation in La Jolla, CA. "I think the significance of their work is showing that there may well be such a safe and useful drug. But I don't think such a drug has been developed yet."

Koob, who has done his own preliminary research using Ro15-4513 in rats, says there are indications this drug is not problem-free. His work suggests it can produce serious "anxiety" in rats. Such anxiety reactions have been described by humans who have been given drugs known to have "inverse agonist" properties against benzodiazepines, he says.

Suzdak challenges that interpretation. Through Ro15-4513 is known to be at lease a weak inverse against, he says, "if the dose we were using were producing anxiety, we would have been able to pick it up" on the behavioral test they administered to rats. They didn't. Koob suggest this apparent contradiction may be due to differences in the rat strains tested or to the two groups use of similar but not identical behavioral tests to measure "anxiety" in their animals.

In any case, Suzdak says "we hope to develop a more potent analog of the drug - one that would have no inverse agonist effects at all." For now , his group is planning tests with nonhuman primates to see whether the current drug is useful in blocking the positive reinforcement effects that encourage alcohol dependence in the chronic heavy drinker.

TOWED, BUT NOT FOR GOOD

UNLICENSED: THE POLICE ARE IMPOUNDING THEIR CARS.

Hundreds of unlicensed drivers in Alameda County have had their cars towed and impounded for 30 days as a result of a state law that passed this year. But the toughest part of the law, which allows authorities to take the cars permanently, has gone virtually unheeded by authorities.

That part of the law would be too costly to enforce, some departments say.

In January, about 600 cars a month were taken away because of invalid licenses, Oakland police Sgt. Arthur Roth said. Now, the figure is closer to 350, which police say is evidence that the law is working by discouraging unlicensed drivers.

Fremont police began enforcing the law on May 1 and have impounded at least 50 cars since then. There have been no efforts to take the cars permanently.

''For the most part, the cars are junkers anyway,'' Traffic Officer Dan Clark said. ''We put a couple of thousand into it and it's worth 50 bucks.''

Taking steps to seize the cars permanently could create other problems, police say.

''We can hold his car for three months. All that towing and storage accrues for three months and what if the state loses (the case)?,'' Roth said. ''Who's going to pay for it? And what if you do this for a clunker car? There's no incentive to go broke.''

The story is the same in Santa Clara County, where no police departments have enforced the section of the law that allows them to take the vehicles of unlicensed drivers who previously have been convicted of driving without a license.

Legislators who worked to craft the laws might not be pleased with how the law is playing out.

''What's really frustrating is that this is something that we know will save lives, and people aren't taking advantage of it,'' said Assemblyman Richard Katz, D-Panorama City, author of the Safe Streets Act of 1994. ''People are dying because of it.'' 75% keep driving illegally

According to the state Department of Motor Vehicles, 720,000 California drivers have their licenses taken away at any given time. An estimated 75 percent, or 540,000 motorists, continue to drive illegally.

The DMV reports that more than 20 percent of California drivers involved in fatal accidents lack valid licenses.

Several local law-enforcement officials said the law is still too new to tell whether it is making the streets safer. Others, however, point to the successes other jurisdictions have had with this and similar measures.

In Richmond, for example, there have been 40 percent fewer hit-and-run accidents this year compared with the same period in 1994. An unexpected benefit has been that the number of homicides has declined from 32 to 10. ''We believe it's the result of a lot of vehicles being off the street, and people not being able to move around as freely,'' said Richmond police Sgt. Enos Johnson.

In 1993 and 1994, Santa Rosa had a 10-month experimental program in which it impounded cars of unlicensed drivers. It found a 9 percent drop in injury accidents, a 14 percent decline in hit-and-run accidents and 20 percent fewer alcohol-related accidents, said Richard Beard, the Santa Clara County deputy district attorney handling cases filed under the law.

In many cases, the 30-day impoundment will act as a forfeiture, Beard said. That's because many impounded cars are rusty, beat-up hulks. Their owners often decide it's not worth the $700 in fees it can cost to have the vehicles released, towing company employees and police say.

The DMV reports that more than 20 percent of California drivers involved in fatal accidents lack valid licenses.

The San Jose Police Department began impounding cars in late January, while it notified towing companies and trained its officers. It has impounded more than 3,100 cars in the five months since then, but has not tried forfeiture actions.

''We wanted to get used to one program first before getting into the other one,'' said Sgt. Douglas Bergtholdt, who oversees the department's impoundments and forfeitures. He said the agency probably would not begin trying to forfeit vehicles until the fall, and possibly not until 1996.

Katz said San Jose was not alone. His office found that Long Beach, San Joaquin County and Beverly Hills were three of the few localities claiming cars.

Katz said he crafted his law to avoid punishing people twice for the same crime. A federal appeals court ruled that in some cases, seizing drug defendants' property and then prosecuting them was ''double jeopardy'' and unconstitutional.

David Amann, 27, of Mountain View, said he hopes a similar ruling will spare him.

A California Highway Patrol officer stopped Amann on Friday evening for driving his 1982 Datsun without a seat belt. He caught a lucky break and was able to have a friend - who had a license - drive the car from the tow lot on Monday rather than three weeks later.

''I don't mind paying my $200 for the tow,'' Amann said. ''But if they've impounded my car, I think I've already served my punishment for driving without a license.''

DMV CHIEF QUITS IN DISAGREEMENT

ZOLIN WEATHERED COMPUTER FIASCO BUT WAS AT ODDS WITH WILSON ADMINISTRATION

Frank Zolin, the embattled director of the state Department of Motor Vehicles, who made the controversial decision to abandon a troubled $50 million computer project, abruptly resigned Tuesday, citing irreconcilable differences with top Wilson administration officials.

In a three-page letter to Gov. Pete Wilson, Zolin said he was stepping aside as director of one of state government's largest and most visible agencies because of differences of opinion with Business, Transportation and Housing Secretary Dean Dunphy and Undersecretary Jeffrey Reid. The agency oversees the DMV.

He said his differences with Dunphy, a longtime personal friend of the governor, and Reid stemmed from disagreements over the approach to the ''management and future direction of the department.''

He declined to elaborate other than to say they had not been willing to move as quickly as he would have liked on revisions in the operation of the department.

Zolin, 62, one of the first top administrators to be named by Wilson after his election as governor, became director of the department in March 1991 after 22 years as executive officer of the Los Angeles County Superior Court system.

Zolin's resignation from his $103,000-a-year post is effective Dec. 1. A replacement has not been named.

In an interview, Zolin said he had not been pressured to resign but was leaving by ''mutual agreement'' with the governor's chief of staff, Bob White.

Julie Stewart, a spokeswoman for the agency, said neither Dunphy nor Reid would have any comment.

One state official, who asked not to be identified, said Zolin had become increasingly frustrated with what he considered Reid's micromanagement and intrusion in the day-to-day affairs of the department.

''Zolin wanted to focus on customer services while the agency and Reid were more interested in downsizing and privatization,'' the official said.

Although Zolin was appointed with the understanding that he would reshape the department, his entire tenure as DMV director was overshadowed by a massive computer scandal.

When he took over the department it was already deeply involved in a multimillion-dollar effort to revamp and redesign its computer system. Zolin later said he learned very quickly that the project was in trouble, but tried over an 18-month period to save it.

Finally, in December, 1993, deciding the project design was ''fundamentally flawed'' he ordered it abandoned. By then the state had invested $50 million.

MOFFETT POLICE ARREST POWERS ARE HANDCUFFED

In an unusual interpretation of police powers on federal property, officers at NASA/Ames Research Center in Mountain View are under orders not to arrest drunken drivers, juveniles or those who commit minor crimes.

The order comes after the facility's chief attorney, George Lenehan, concluded officers with the Moffett Federal Airfield police force a state- certified department of nearly 20 cops had been overstepping their boundaries by arresting offenders in misdemeanor cases on federal property, which he contends conflicts with California laws.

But Lenehan's conclusion has raised serious concerns within the police department, neighbor ing law enforcement agencies and a well-known anti-drunken driving organization. Collectively, they say the department is handcuffed.

They fear intoxicated drivers from the facility, which has three drinking establishments, will hit the local streets and flow onto highways 101, 85 or 237, even if they swerve all over the government roads in view of officers.

''It's pretty frightening to us,'' said Tom Satterly, executive director of the Bay Area chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.''I think it's a pretty irresponsible thing that's going on there.''

The order to not arrest juveniles also worries Moffett police, who note that one of their major cases involved the arrest and conviction of a 16-year- old Fremont boy who stole $90,000 in traveler's checks in January.

The chief is complying with the order, albeit reluctantly.

''I am obviously concerned with how we, NASA, are going to effect the same level of safety on our roads that the surrounding community has,'' said Mark Miller, head of the protective services division, which includes the police department. ''I'm not aware of this difficulty at other NASA facilities.''

Miller referred further questions to his supervisor, Coleman, who forwarded calls to Lenehan.

''I don't share his alarm or concern,'' Lenehan said.

The police department was converted from a security force last summer, when the Navy left Moffett and NASA/Ames took over the sprawling 2,000-acre facility. Since July, officers have made many arrests for felonies and misdemeanors and have jailed 18 suspected drunken drivers.

Earlier this year, Lenehan began to review federal and state laws, and in April, he concluded the police shouldn't arrest anybody for misdemeanors, which include thefts and reckless driving. Those suspected of committing a misdemeanor as specified in the state vehicle or penal codes, he said, will be warned and then escorted to the front gate.

Once there, the offender is free to drive into unincorporated Santa Clara County, Mountain View or Sunnyvale or onto any one of the three freeways.

But that may change.

After receiving complaints from the police department and local law enforcement agencies, Lenehan is trying to arrange for sheriff's deputies to arrest or cite misdemeanor offenders at the main gate. The sheriff's department has jurisdiction for hundreds of housing units located near the gate.

''We're trying to work things out,'' said Assistant Sheriff Tom Sing, who met with Lenehan. ''I don't like it, of course, but what can I do?''

Local officials with the California Highway Patrol raised concerns that Moffett police are forced to let drunks off the base and onto the highways.

''In the interest of public safety, I think it's unfair that powers have been taken away from them,'' said Lt. Mike Marlette of the San Jose office of the CHP, which patrols the highways south of the Ellis Street gate.

''Unfortunately, for us, there's not really anything we can do from our standpoint because that is federal property,'' said Lt. Clifford Gray of the CHP's Redwood City office.

An aide to Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Atherton, said the congresswoman's staff would look into the matter.

'It's pretty frightening to us,'' said Tom Satterly, executive director of the Bay Area chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.''

WHY LAW TO PREVENT DRUNKEN DRIVING FAILS

Two years ago, anti-drunken driving forces were jubilant over a new law requiring repeat offenders to equip their cars with devices to prevent them from driving unless sober.

But today, the eagerly sought measure is an abject failure. California judges, based on exemptions written into the law, aren't ordering installation of the device in the bulk of cases.

Because of that, and the weak enforcement of the small number of orders actually made, the device has been installed in only about 1 percent of an estimated 150,000 eligible cases, according to state officials, device makers and others.

That means many drinking drivers are able to take to the roadways once more, risking death or injury to themselves and others.

''There is no excuse for it,'' said Kathy Crawford, head of Simple Solutions for Tragic Losses, a Modesto non-profit agency active in alcohol- abuse issues. ''We're talking about, literally, a matter of life and death.''

''The system lets us down,'' said Marty Mattson, public policy chair of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in California. ''We've got a good law in place now. I don't know why they don't use it.''

The devices in question are called ignition interlocks. Would-be drivers are required to blow into a mouthpiece, and a small unit then analyzes the breath sample for alcohol. Unless a driver registers a blood-alcohol level of 0.025 percent or lower, the car won't start; by comparison, the legal limit for driving is 0.08 percent.

Drivers must also give breath samples while driving. The interlocks keep logs of their activity for review by judges and the interlock provider. In a number of studies, the devices have been found to be highly effective in keeping drunks off the road and in sharply reducing the re-arrest rate for repeat offenders.

California's interlock law went into effect in July 1993. It was buttressed with follow-up legislation last year after initial difficulties with enforcement began to emerge. But even after the attempted cleanup, compliance is abysmal. Ironically, California's failure today comes after the state pioneered interlock use in 1986 with a pilot project.

Reflecting educational campaigns and tougher enforcement, driving-while- intoxicated arrests, as well as alcohol-related accidents and deaths, are down sharply in California today. Still, nearly 1,600 people were killed and 43,000 injured in 1993, the latest year for which figures are available. Of those who continue to be arrested, many are the chronic offenders at whom the interlock device is targeted.

Reasons why

There's no single reason for failure of the law, but interviews with judges, interlock vendors and others indicate the chief explanations are that:

Offenders are too poor: In one of the most frequently used exceptions, the law allows judges to waive interlocks in cases of financial hardship. Many believe the approximately $700 annual cost is too much, especially when levied on top of stiff fines, and given that many offenders are low-income to start.

''People, primarily, are in a financial pinch,'' said Marshall Whitley, an Alameda County municipal court judge who said he's been forced to abandon, at least temporarily, orders to install interlocks when offenders document they have little money.

Cars get dumped: The law requires an interlock for cars owned or operated by the offender, but many offenders often at the urging of their defense attorneys sell their cars before sentencing. Some of these sales are bogus sham transfers to relatives who quickly return cars after sentences are rendered. But judges say that if offenders can document that they no longer own or have access to a vehicle, interlocks aren't an option, whatever suspicions they may harbor.

Man Arrested 7 times for DWI Remains in Prison

In the seven years since his 21st birthday, Joseph Duvall has pleaded guilty at least five times to drunken driving.

He has spent less than six months in jail and six months in a halfway house.

When a state trooper arrested Duvall for driving while intoxicated on June 15 - less than a year after Duvall served three months in jail for a previous DWI conviction - he was driving with a valid driver's license.

Duvall, 28, of 917 Bay St., Denham Springs, has been in Parish Prison on $100,000 bond since that arrest.

According to court records.

Aug. 12, 1988: Duvall was arrested for DWI by Houma Police, National Crime Information Computer records show. No other records on that arrest were available.

Jan. 20, 1990: Duvall arrested by state police for DWI. He was going 68 mph in a 55 mph zone and repeatedly crossed the center line of the road, the police report said. Duvall again failed the field sobriety test, but he refused to take a breath test, the report said.

He was arrested for and charged with second-offense DWI, but he pleaded guilty to first-offense DWI before Judge Hester, who gave him a 30-day suspended sentence and ordered more training programs, a fine and more community service, according to court records.

June 27, 1991: Baton Rouge police arrested Duvall for second-offense DWI.

Aug. 25, 1991: Baton Rouge police arrested Duvall for DWI, this time booking him with fifth-offense DWI, according to police records.

On Jan. 24, 1992, Duvall pleaded guilty before Hester to both counts, court records show.

July 25, 1993: Duvall arrested by Denham Springs Police, according to police records. He was booked with fourth-offense DWI and charged by the 21st Judicial District attorney's office with third-offense DWI, according to the district attorney's office spokeswoman Eileen McCarroll.

Jail records show that Duvall served from April 11, 1994 to July 7, 1994 - about three months - in Livingston Parish Jail.

June 15: A state trooper stopped Duvall on O'Neal Lane for swerving and weaving, Mistretta said. His driver's license, which was issued on Feb. 2, was valid.

Fourth-offense carries a fine of up to $5,000 and a prison sentence of 10 to 30 years, but all but one year can be suspended.

Landrum said she will charge Duvall with the most serious crime she can.

Holt said that he was considering trying to get Duvall transferred from jail to a drug and alcohol treatment facility.

"I think that's what he really needs," Holt said.

DID DMV TAKE WRONG TURN WITH OLDER DRIVER?

Q My grandmother's driver's license expires in January on her 91st birthday. She's been notified that she can renew it by mail. Grandma, who lives in Southern California, has a

DMV Makes Mistake Driver Get License Back

Los Angeles Daily Journal, 9.94

Some drivers whose licenses were revoked may be able to get them back in the wake of the sate Attorney General's Office acknowledgment of a snafu in the vehicle code, Beverly Hills defense attorney Gerson Horn, said.

Horn represented Paul Louk, of Thousand Oaks, Louk was stopped, arrested for a DUI and lost his license under Vehicle Code 13353.2 (BAC above .08 = loss of license). Louk received two points on his license for conviction of his DUI.

Then while on suspension he was stopped and given a ticket for driving on a suspended license. DMV officials then added two additional points, for a total of four. Making Louk a negligent driver (VC12810.5)

The snafu, as Horn explained it, is that the Legislature apparently neglected to include VC 14601.5 (driving on a DUI suspended license) on its list of violations for which points can be added to a persons record.

DMV rejected Louk's appeals. But when Horn appealed Louk's license revocation to a Ventura County Superior Court judge, the judge indicated he would rule in Louk's favor. Before he did so, Elizabeth Hong acknowledged the problem in the law and agreed to give Louk his license back.

New Law Allows Work Related Restricted License

Starting January 1, 1995, all persons arrested for DUI may apply for restricted license that allows driving to and from work and in the course of employment. Prior to this new law persons arrested for DUI were only allowed to have restrictions to and from a treatment program. The new law allows those persons arrested to have this restriction if they (1) completed a 30 day 'hard' suspension (2) enroll in an approved DUI program (Form DS-626) (3) pay the necessary fees (4) show proof of financial responsibility (SR-22).

Complied and edited by: Ed Reither DPI - January 1995 905.5555 - f.905.5565

4 Cops Killed After Leaving Bar

Montreal - Quebec police said yesterday that they are investigating a car crash that killed four off duty police officers. The officers, who were taking a week long training course on breathalyzer training, were returning from a bar early Thursday when their car skidded and hit a truck near Trois-Rivieres, Quebec. The truck driver was uninjured.

ADULTS ARRESTED AFTER BABY GIRL INGESTS DRUGS

The 10-month-old girl couldn't stop screaming in the Fremont emergency room, as her heart beat at twice the normal rate.

The reason for her pain: She had consumed alcohol and methamphetamine while in the care of family members who allegedly used the drug, police said Monday.

As a result of the weekend incident, the baby's grandmother and her father's girlfriend who were caring for the child face child endangerment charges, while her father and uncle have been arrested on warrants that allege drug offenses.

The girl has been placed with Child Protective Services, Fremont police said. Her current condition was not known.

It was not clear how the drug got into the baby's system, although she was sitting at a table at her Hayward home at which three adults may have used the drug Saturday, according to a police report.

''When they're sitting around and shooting up and tooting up, they're off in their own world enjoying themselves,'' said Sgt. Bob Armstrong.

According to the 1992 annual report of the American Association of Poison Centers, methamphetamine was involved in only 2,142 of the 454,689 cases in which children under 6 years old were exposed to narcotics.

Charged with felony child endangerment were the girl's grandmother, Jean Marie Villa, 43, of San Jose; and Julie McCafferty, 30, of Hayward. McCafferty. The girl's father, James Siebels, 26, was arrested on warrants.

DRIVING SIMULATORS TO FOCUS ON HEALTH PROBLEMS OF ELDERLY

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 The head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Ricardo Martinez, M.D., said today that a new advanced driving simulator will be used to identify driving safety problems involving older drivers who are over-represented in crashes.

According to Dr. Martinez, "Conducting meaningful driver research in actual traffic situations is not possible because of the risk of physical harm.

However, technology learned from the space and defense programs will soon result in a motor vehicle driving simulator that will realistically replicate driving conditions and measure skills."

Dr. Martinez said that older Americans are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. In the years ahead it will become increasingly important to understand the driving ability and possible limitations of older drivers. State motor vehicle administrators will need this information to make licensing decisions while preserving the mobility of seniors.

ABC GIVES WARNING TO STATE'S LIQUOR LICENSEES

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec. 19

Jay Stroh, the Director of theCalifornia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has warned the more than 70,000 liquor licensees in California they may receive fines or suspensions for serving obviously intoxicated patrons during the holiday season.

Stroh reminded the owners of bars and liquor stores that under the law, "no person may sell or give alcohol to anyone who is obviously intoxicated ... even if the customer is not driving. The maximum fine is $1,000 and/or six months in county jail. And under certain conditions, a liquor license could be revoked.

Said Stroh, "Studies have shown that about half of the driving under the influence arrests were the result of people being served too much in bars and restaurants." Besides the criminal actions against the server, Stroh said licensees also face the prospect of civil actions by victims of DUI collisions.

Stroh noted that even though the number of people killed on the State's roads and highways have dropped over the past two decades, the tragic toll during the holiday season is still high. According to the California Highway Patrol, 156 people were killed last year between December 20, 1993 and January 2, 1994. Of that total, almost half were alcohol related incidents.

Stroh urged licensees to be cognizant of the condition of their patrons. "Responsible serving of alcohol could prevent a family tragedy and prolonged legal problems."

Common Characteristics Of Addiction

1. Addictions are normal pleasurable behaviors..sex, food and drinking are essential to survival..but only in moderate amounts! ...the brain works like this: if you taste or experience something that you like, that feels good, you're reinforced to do that again.
2. To alter their present state of mind or feeling
3. The body develops a physical tolerance
4. Removal of the substance or activity produces painful or discomforating withdrawals.
5. Addictions cause repeated behavioral problems and activity of use take up a lot of a persons time.

Top Czech Beer Drinker

Prague, Czech Republic - Qualifying was hard enough - downing two pints of beer in one gulp. But that was only the prelude to an arduous bout of elbow-bending.

The winner? A bus driver who rarely indulges in alcohol.

The man, who was not identified by the state CTK news agency, put away 20 pints of brew to triumph at the annual beer drinker' contest in Strakonice.

The contest, held about 75 miles southwest of Prague, was open to anyone who could drain a two-pint glass of beer in one gulp.

Many cleared that hurdle. After a short break, the contest began in earnest - competitors had to down six pints in one hour.

Only eight finalists survived into the evening. And only two mode it to midnight, when the winner was announced.

The driver, received $320 in prize money, said CTK.

Czech have one of the highest beer consumption rates in the world - downing an average of nearly 42 gallons each annually.

SIGNS OF INTOXICATION

• Inhibitions Become Relaxed
• Overly friendly
• Loud
• Changing volume of speech
• Drinking alone
• Annoying others
• Using foul language
• Drinking more or faster than usual
• Reactions Are Affected
• Slurred speech
• Slow and deliberate movement
• Decreased alertness
• Quick, slow or fluctuating pace of speech
• Judgment Is Impaired
• Complains about strength of drink
• Changing consumption rate
• Ordering Doubles
• Argumentative (e.g., low-key
• altercations, confrontations or
• heated arguments)
• Careless with money
• Buying rounds for strangers
• Irrational statements
• Belligerent
• Lighting more than one cigarette
• Loss of train of thought
• Loss of Coordination (muscle control)
• Fumbling with money
• Spilling drink
• Cannot find mouth with drink
• Unable to sit straight on chair or barstool
• Swaying, drowsy
• Stumbling
• Bumps into things
• Falling
• Unable to light cigarette
• Physical Appearance
• Red, watery eyes
• Disheveled clothing
• Sweating
• Smell of an alcoholic beverage on person
• Droopy eyelids
• Lack of eye focus
• Flushed face

Acetaminophen May Cause Liver Damage

CHICAGO (AP) Moderate overdoses of painkillers such as Tylenol can cause severe liver damage in people who are too sick to eat, a study says

But researchers emphasized that acetaminophen, one of the most widely used medications for minor illness and pain, is also one of the safest when taken properly.

"The message is to follow the directions and be sensible in using any medication," said Dr. David C. Whitcomb, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and lead author of the study in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Previous research has shown that acetaminophen can damage the livers of hard drinkers at lower overdoses than in other people. But the new study shows overdoses can cause liver damage in nondrinkers if they don't get enough to eat.

Moderate overdoses of acetaminophen led to liver damage in 10 of the patients with liver damage treated at the university over 5 1/2 years, a review of records showed.

Eight of the 10 patients had been eating little, and three had been drinking alcohol.

One of the patients died and another required a liver transplant. The rest recovered completely.

A moderate overdose was defined as 4 to 10 grams of acetaminophen the equivalent of eight to 20 extra-strength tablets within 24 hours. The maximum recommended dose is 4 grams, or eight extra-strength tablets, in 24 hours.

The study also found eight additional patients who took high overdoses of acetaminophen more than 10 grams in 24 hours and suffered liver damage. Five had been fasting, and seven were chronic drinkers.

Two of the eight died and one required a liver transplant.

Most of the patients fasted because illnesses made them too sick to eat, Whitcomb said. In some cases it was a severe sore throat or toothache, in others the flu or migraine headaches with nausea and vomiting.

The manufacturer of Tylenol said the study should not change the way consumers use its product.

"In the majority of cases, the overdose was combined with prolonged periods of fasting and-or excessive use of alcohol," said Johnson & Johnson, parent of Tylenol maker McNeil Consumer Products Co. of Fort Washington, Pa. "This is a rare combination of extremes that shouldn't concern the millions of people who have used Tylenol safely for more than three decades."

In the past ten months or so two Accidents, Alcohol and Pot studies have emerged from the National Highway traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) which looked at the safety implcations of various substances with respect to driving.

These studies are readily available in the public domain. Here's a review of one of the studies:

NHTSA Accident Study Finds Alcohol, Not Drugs the Big Danger on the Road; Marijuana By Itself Not an Apparent Driving Hazard A newly released National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study indicates that alcohol is by far the leading cause of drug-related traffic accidents, while marijuana poses negligible danger except when combined with alcohol.

The study, the most comprehensive drug accident survey to date, is dated October 1992, but is only now being released. A researcher familiar with the project says this is because it contradicts the government's official anti-drug line that illicit drugs are a major public safety hazard.

The study investigated blood samples from 1882 drivers killed in car, truck and motorcycle accidents in seven states during 1990 - 91. Alcohol was found in 51.5% of the specimens. Just 17.8% showed traces of other drugs; marijuana was a distant second to alcohol at 6.7%, followed by cocaine (5.3%), benzodiazepine tranquillizers (2.9%) and amphetamine (1.9%). Two-thirds of marijuana- and other-drug-using drivers were also positive for alcohol.

The report concluded that alcohol was by far the "dominant problem" in drug-related accidents. A responsibility analysis showed that alcohol-using drivers were conspicuously culpable in fatal accidents, especially at high blood concentrations or in combination with other drugs, including marijuana. However, those who used marijuana alone were found to be if anything less culpable than non-drug-users. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

The NHTSA report, "The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers," by K.W. Terhune, et al. of the Calspan Corp. Accident Research Group in Buffalo, NY (Report # DOT-HS-808-065) is available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield VA 22161.

New Vehicle Code Legislation for 1995 Vehicles: DUI Procedures

• Modifies reporting and notice requirements of the DMV regarding DUI's
• Eliminated to court's ability to waive the mandatory 10 jail sentience upon subsequent conviction of DUI.
• Expands vehicle impoundment on DUI arrest.

DUI License Suspensions

Revises conditions for administrative suspension of driver's licenses, and for restoration of the driving privilege, following an arrest for driving under the influence. Raises the age limit for driving with a .05 percent BAC from 18 to 21 years.

Extends the suspension for drivers under age 21 who refuse a preliminary alcohol screening test. Authorizes a person who has been administratively suspended to request a license hearing as provided for other DUI suspensions. Makes administrative suspension causes for impoundment of a vehicle.

Revises the DUI treatment program provisions by requiring proof of completion of treatment within a time period set by the DMV after conviction.

Makes other technical and clarifying changes.

Drugs; Driver's License Suspension

Directs the DMV to automatically suspend privilege to drive for six months on each conviction of any drug offense, whether or not a driving offense is involved. Driver's licenses are to be surrendered to the court.

Suspended Driver's Licenses: Vehicle Forfeiture

The Safe Streets Act of 1994 authorizes impoundment of a vehicle owned and operated by an unlicensed or suspended licensed driver with a prior violation of driving on a suspended or revoked driver's license. Requires a court hearing on petition of forfeiture and provides for a filing fee of up to $50. Establishes a conclusive presumption that a certified-mail notice of license suspension has been delivered.

Ignition Interlock Devices

Recasts procedures governing ignition interlock devices. Allows a court to prohibit any person convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol beverages or drugs, regardless of whether probation is granted, from operating a motor vehicle without an ignition interlock device.

• Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for 'interest of justice' exemptions to mandatory installation
• Establishes additional monitoring duties for courts, and requires the DMV to cross-match driver's license records with records of persons applying for change of ownership or transfer of title and to report matched records to the appropriate court.

Sentence Enhancements: Suspended License

Makes driving aon a license suspended for driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or more or refusing to take a chemical test a priorable offense, resulting in enhanced penalties for other violations related to driving on a suspended license.

ALPA PETITIONS FOR CHANGES IN ALCOHOL TESTING RULES

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation rules for alcohol testing are in conflict with the constitution, various federal acts, and the bill passed by Congress mandating such tests, and should be revised, according to a petition filed today by the Air Line Pilots Association.

The union's president also has reiterated his call for elimination or reduction of onerous levels of random testing in an industry that already has one of the lowest rates of substance abuse in the nation.

"We knew we were going to have some problems with the new alcohol testing rules, but now that we've had a chance to examine them in detail, it's far worse than we imagined. The rules violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause, the Federal Aviation Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, which authorized alcohol testing in the first place," said Captain Randolph Babbitt, president of ALPA.

"But under the FAA's alcohol testing rule, where my career can be ended instantaneously, I have no recourse.

"We have a zero tolerance attitude toward drug and alcohol abuse in the airlines, and that's as it should be. However, if we're going to terminate workers' careers with a testing program, we absolutely must have a zero tolerance attitude toward testing inaccuracies as well. That means adequate due process and adequate testing standards," Babbitt said.

"The lack of due process is especially offensive when you look at the procedures that are in place for other violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

NEARLY 90 PERCENT OF COCAINE USERS USE OTHER DRUGS FIRST

A study of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) showing a consistent and powerful connection between use of gateway drugs tobacco, alcohol and marijuana and subsequent use of other illicit drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

The report addresses the controversial subject of the relationship of smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol to the use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other illicit drugs. It is the first and most comprehensive national analysisever undertaken of all three relationships among children and adults, as experimenters and regular users.

The study reveals that children (12-17) who use the gateway drugs are up to 266 times more likely to use cocaine than their counterparts who don't use them. And the younger a child uses a gateway drug and the more frequently, the greater the risk of subsequent hard drug use.

The Center's study also found that: children (12 to 17) who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than non-marijuana users. children who drink are 50 times more likely to use cocaine than non-drinkers. children who smoke at least daily are 13 times more likely to use heroin than children who smoke less often.

EVANS, N.Y. (AP) - It's a parent's nightmare: Hire a limo to get the kids to and from the prom in one piece, and the driver shows up drunk.

Police said Paul Dombrowski had a blood-alcohol level of .34, more than three times the legal limit. Dombrowski, 36, was charged with drunken driving and endangering the students.

"The kids were hysterical," Officer Dennis Feldmann said. "They were begging him to drop them off."

They ordered him to stop after he narrowly avoided crashing the limo several times early Saturday, after the prom in this town about 20 miles from Buffalo.

"I started slapping his cheek. He was just staring out," 15-year-old Cory Herc said. "I just reached over, turned off the car and took the keys."

Police said they found an empty one-liter vodka bottle, along with a half-empty bottle, in the limousine.

TOLEDO, OHIO---The Ohio Supreme Court Justice who was arrested for drunk driving last year after she blew more than three times the state limit of .08, has now been cited for failure to control her vehicle after she crossed three lanes of traffic. Crashing nearly head-on into another vehicle.

While other judges have had their law licenses suspended for convictions for driving while drunk, Judge Alice Robie Resnick, 67, received only a public reprimand from the judicial conduct panel, the first issued against a sitting judge in 30 years.

Resnick had announced that she will leave office in December.

Now she's been cited to appear Sept. 25 in Toledo Municipal Court on the traffic citation resulting from the accident which occurred about 10:45 a.m. Tuesday in West Toledo. Police reports say alcohol and drugs didn't play a role in Tuesday's accident but no field sobriety tests were given.

The driver of the other car, Barbara Holmes, 74, of West Toledo, was treated and released at a Toledo hospital on Tuesday but was admitted to the hospital on Wednesday.

Resnick was not hurt and was transported to her home from the scene by a police officer.

According to reports, the judge lost control of her 2005 Cadillac, went left of the center of the highway and struck the 1999 Honda Accord being driven by Ms. Holmes. Both vehicles were towed from the scene. Resnick was arrested for DWI on Jan. 31, 2005 after other motorists complained that she was weaving in and out of traffic. She drove away from the state troopers as they were questioning her. They pursued her and stopped her again, the stop captured on video camera. Upon questioning by a police sergeant, Resnick is shown on camera admitting that "I did have something to drink". She tried to use the prestige of her position, repeatedly asking not to be ticketed and mentions her rulings as a judge, saying "My God, you know I decide all these cases in your favor. And my golly, look what you're doing to me".

Resnick was reportedly driving to Columbus where she was scheduled to hear cases the next day. Although she tested 0.216 in field sobriety tests, she refused to take the official test at the police station. Under a new state law, drivers whose blood alcohol content registers over 0.17 who refuse to take the test face mandatory jail time.

But not Resick.

Nor was she charged with fleeing or failing to comply with the order of an officer, resisting arrest or other charges.

The special panel rendering the discipline against Resnick was comprised of the chief justice of the appeals courts and the presiding judge of all 12 appellate districts. Normally the Ohio Supreme Court handles attorney discipline cases but the entire court was forced to disqualify itself from hearing a case involving a member of the court.

The judges found that Resnick's conduct on Jan. 31 "which led to her arrest and subsequent conviction of the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, violated Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct which provides that 'A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. They said that "the day that the complaint was filed, Justice Resnick filed her answer admitting each and every allegation of the complaint, including the Canon 2 violation".

Resnick pleaded guilty to driving under the influence in February and completed a three-day alcohol intervention program in lieu of jail time. She paid a $500 fine and had her driver's license suspended for six months. She said she'd had a relapse after 22 years of sobriety. 9-14-06

Source: http://www.northcountrygazette.org

NOW THAT a study in the respected New England Journal of Medicine has shown the dangers of cellular phones in automobiles, it is only a matter of time until the drumbeat for regulation begins. After all, Australia, Brazil, England and Israel already prohibit the use of phones while driving.

Should the United States move quickly to follow suit? No. The debate over the comparative value and risk of cellular phones is far from settled.

The first large study of car phones, carried out by two Canadian research, examined the cases of 699 Toronto drivers who were involved in noninjury accidents over a 14-month period. Their overall conclusion, published in the Journal of Medicine this week, was hardly shocking: Drivers using a cellular phone were more than four times more likely to have an accident as other drivers -- comparable to the increased risk of driving with a blood-alcohol level at the legal limit.

This finding, in itself, shows the seriousness of the driving-while-dialing issue. Curiously, however, the researchers found that there was no significant difference in risk between driving with a hand-held phone or a hands-free phone. One possible explanation would be that inattention caused by the conversation -- not the loss of one hand from the wheel -- is the real culprit here. Still, common sense suggests that a driver engaged in conversation and wrestling with a flip phone connected to the cigarette lighter is much more distracted than someone who can keep both hands on the steering wheel while talking. Also, the study acknowledged, but did not attempt to quantify, the benefit of car phones in summoning help in emergencies.

On balance, the Journal article should be cause for extensive follow-up studies, especially with the number of wireless phones in this nation at 34 million -- and growing.

In the meantime, drivers would be wise to limit their on-the-road calls to the briefest and most essential conversations. To ignore these new statistics is to risk becoming one.

"impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk"

A Study:

A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver

Strayer DL, Drews FA, Crouch DJ. Hum Factors 2006; 48(2): 381-91.

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, 380 South, 1530 East, RM 502, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0251, USA. david.strayer@utah.edu

(Copyright © 2006, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society)

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to determine the relative impairment associated with conversing on a cellular telephone while driving.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence suggests that the relative risk of being in a traffic accident while using a cell phone is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit. The purpose of this research was to provide a direct comparison of the driving performance of a cell phone driver and a drunk driver in a controlled laboratory setting.

METHOD: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of cell phone drivers with drivers who were intoxicated from ethanol (i.e., blood alcohol concentration at 0.08% weight/volume).

RESULTS: When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking.

CONCLUSION: When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk.

APPLICATION: This research may help to provide guidance for regulation addressing driver distraction caused by cell phone conversations

Published Friday, July 31, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News

BY DAVID J. MORROW

New York Times

A drug widely available in Europe that may reduce the urge to drink is being tested in the United States, which has an estimated 13.7 million alcoholics. The French maker of the drug hopes to have it on the U.S. market in 2000.

Many experts on dependency say the drug -- acamprosate, which would be sold in the United States as Campral -- is badly needed. Only two other medications can treat alcoholism and both can have unpleasant or potentially dangerous side effects.

Doctors say they can prescribe acamprosate to help alcoholics remain sober, possibly saving thousands of people from painful relapses while reducing the cost of rehabilitation, which was $5 billion last year.

Acamprosate's expected arrival, though, has ignited a controversy in the health-care community, pitting specialists who argue that alcoholics should be treated with counseling alone against doctors who insist that drugs are crucial tools.

The debate has become rousing at times, with acamprosate's champions deriding opponents for their "medieval" outlook. Advocates of drug-free treatments say their approach has worked for decades; why take chances?

Acamprosate's maker, Lipha SA, a subsidiary of the German drug maker Merck KGaA, is undeterred. It plans to take on a U.S. marketing partner and stress acamprosate's success rate.

In 11 clinical trials with 3,338 alcohol-dependent patients in Europe, 50 percent of those patients using acamprosate abstained for three months -- the period when alcoholics are most likely to regress -- compared with 39 percent of those using a placebo.

A U.S. trial, with 600 alcohol-dependent patients at 21 sites nationwide, should be completed early next year. Lipha officials are so excited about acamprosate's benefits that they hope it will eventually be available over the counter.

"Acamprosate has been shown to help prevent relapse," said Dr. Karl Mann, a professor of medicine at the University of Tubingen, who conducted the trial in Germany. "Once patients give up alcohol and go on with their lives, they see it, smell it, dream about it. Acamprosate helps them get through all that."

Doctors hope acamprosate will become popular because it is cheap and simple to take. In France, the average cost is $1.94 a pill, about the same as a red wine at the local bistro. Patients take two 500-milligram pills in the morning and two more at night; the main side effect is mild diarrhea, which usually goes away after several days.

By contrast, American Home Products' Antabuse, introduced in 1951, can be toxic if the patient drinks enough alcohol, while naltrexone, made by DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical, can cause liver damage if prescribed in too high a dose.

The drug is no substitute for detoxification. A patient's alcoholism must be treated before it can do any good. But moderate drinkers might also turn to it to try to control their drinking.

Associated Press

REYNOLDSBURG, Ohio -- Abercrombie & Fitch is deleting a two-page "creative drinking" article from a clothing catalog for college students following an uproar complaining that it encouraged binge drinking.

The company said Wednesday that it will remove the article, titled "Drinking 101," from unsold copies of its most recent edition of A&F Quarterly, which focuses on students returning to college.

The article included a drinking game and recipes for drinks including the "Brain Hemorrhage" that students could substitute for the "standard beer binge."

Karolyn Nunnallee, the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said she was pleased by the decision. She had called the catalog an abomination.

Earlier, the company failed to satisfy critics when it pulled the 215-page catalog from stores until a sticker could be affixed that said in part, "We don't want to lose anybody to thoughtlessness and stupidity. For some, part of college life includes partying and drinking -- be smart and be responsible."

Abercrombie & Fitch spokesman Lonnie Fogel said Wednesday that unsold magazines have been removed from the company's 160 stores. The article will be cut out with a knife and the magazines will be returned to the stores, he said.

"Our company does not support irresponsible or underage drinking and we want to make that clear to our customers and the general public," Michael Jeffries, Abercrombie & Fitch's chairman and chief executive, said in a statement issued by the company based in this Columbus suburb.

The company also said that when the fashion magazine has stories on alcohol in the future, it will urge readers to "be responsible, be 21, and don't ever drink and drive."

Anyone who received a copy of the magazine in the mail will be sent a post card that says the article appeared to some readers to encourage underage drinking or binge drinking.

"Under no circumstances does Abercrombie & Fitch support underage or binge drinking. Although it was not meant in a serious vein, we made a mistake in describing a 'drinking game' that could be interpreted as encouraging binge drinking," the postcard says.

"We're pleased that they're taking action at what truly was a mistake and doing something right. We commend them for what they're doing," Nunnallee said.

"For a catalog this popular to put out a message every American should adhere to is a big step to saving lives and preventing injures," she said.

At least four U.S. cabinet departments and hundreds of public health advocates in the United States define a drink of alcohol as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits. Virtually every health group in the United States subscribes to the facts of equivalency and that as a result, there is no drink of moderation, only the practice.

The AMA is also wrong when they link distilled spirits advertising to underage drinking. For decades, DISCUS and its members have abided by a strong, honored and recognized policy stressing responsible, dignified and tasteful advertising to adults who choose to drink. DISCUS members strongly oppose marketing and sales, including television advertising, that targets underage persons.

Given that alcohol is alcohol and distillers do not advertise or market to underage persons, the AMA call for a ban on television and radio advertising by distilled spirits producers is highly discriminatory and unsupportable. Beer, wine and distilled spirits have a legal right to advertise and there is no basis to discriminate against one form of alcohol.

Following is a fact sheet of beverage alcohol equivalence: All alcohol beverages have one thing in common -- they contain alcohol. Standard servings of beer, wine and spirits -- a 12-ounce can of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine and a 1 1/2-ounce shot of 80-proof distilled spirits -- all contain the same amount of absolute alcohol. A diverse collection of established experts recognize that "alcohol is alcohol is alcohol," and that there is no scientific basis for treatingdistilled spirits differently from other beverages alcohol. --- The federal government (Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Transportation and Education), the American Medical Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Blue Cross/Blue Shield d Alcoholism, HHS, recognizes that alcohol is alcohol: "A standard drink is generally considered to be 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits. Each of these drinks contain roughly the same amount of absolute alcohol -- approximately 0.5-ounce or 12 grams." (Source: Alcohol Alert, No. 16) -

The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concurred with other federal agencies ct Sheet: "Alcohol is alcohol. Beer has the same effect as straight Scotch." --- Laws and regulations treat all beverages alcohol equally. Alcohol warning labels, minimum drinking age laws and drunk driving laws do not distinguish among distilled spirits, beer or wine. --- The National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, the association of the 19 alcohol control jurisdictions in the U.S., conducted a public education campaign on equivalency. Public service advertisements with the message, "A Sobering Fact About Alcohol: It's Not What You Drink, It's How Much" were widely disseminated throughout the 19 control jurisdictions. --- The U.S. Supreme Court's recent reinforcement of the beverage alcohol industry's commercial free speech rights, in its decision in 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island, did not distinguish among distilled spirits, beer or wine. --- On June 12,1995, the Federal Court of Canada repealed country's prohibition of distilled spirit's advertising on television and radio. Prominent researchers and clinicians in Canada testified that all alcohol should be treated equally under the law. Allan Wilson M.D., Ph.D., clinical director of Royal Ottawa Hospital addiction programs, testified that "There is no coherent body of scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of beer, wine and distilled spirits." --- In an affidavit before the court, Harold Kalant, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus in Pharmacology, University of Toronto and Assistant Research Director of the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario concluded, "...there is no logical basis in scientific evidence for differential treatment of different types of alcoholic beverage."

The legal definitions of "driving" and "drunk" are open to many interpretations, which vary subtly from state to state. In some places, "driving" can include sitting still in a parked or wrecked vehicle with the motor off, or starting up a car in a driveway. Police can and do arrest people whom they believe are drunk before they get on the road and even when they've pulled off to "sleep it off," if they're in the driver's seat.

As for the definition of "drunk," there are several major factors to consider. You can be "legally impaired" in the eyes of the law without ever taking a drink, if you have taken other substances (including prescribed medication) that affect your ability to drive. You can also be found drunk even when you have all your faculties in perfect working order.

In short, you can be found guilty of drunk driving, also called driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI), if the state can prove either that:

• you are legally intoxicated while driving, meaning that your body shows alcohol levels above a state-mandated limit. The most common level is .10 percent, as determined by a blood test or breath test, though in some states the level is lower. (In Colorado, for instance you are legally impaired if your alcohol level is .05 percent.) For drivers of commercial vehicles, the level may be even lower.
• you have been driving while your faculties are impaired by alcohol or a drug--that is, that your ability to see, hear, walk, talk and judge distances is below normal as set by the state you're arrested in. Even if your alcohol level is lower than the legal intoxication level, you can still be convicted if the state can show your abilities were impaired.

WHAT'S THE LEGAL LIMIT?

Blood tests measure the number of grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, and breath tests measure grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. In most states, you can be convicted of "drunk driving" when either level is at .10 percent or higher. (Many states are considering a lower level of .08 percent.) But remember, you can be convicted based on other factors even if you don't take the test.

State legislatures have justified these levels on the basis of scientific testing, which has concluded that persons having a blood alcohol content at or above .10 percent are impaired. (In some states, such as California and Florida, the level of impairment is .08 percent.) So, if the state can prove that at the time a person operated a motor vehicle their blood alcohol level was above the legal limit, a conviction for drunk driving may be possible.

The police also may sometimes be able to require that you take a blood test to determine if you have been using drugs. Even if you have taken a legally prescribed dose of medication, you can be convicted if you are found to be impaired.

WHAT KINDS OF TESTS FOR IMPAIRMENT CAN THE POLICE ASK A PERSON TO TAKE BY THE SIDE OF A ROAD?

Any type they want. They could, for instance, ask you to sing the national anthem. However, the commonly-used types of "field sobriety" tests include:

• the "one-leg stand" (the driver must stand on one leg for approximately 30 seconds)
• the "heel-to-toe" test (walking heel to toe in a straight line)
• the "bend test" (the driver must bend forward or backward with eyes closed).

Some police will ask a driver to recite the alphabet or count backward. These, and other tests, may be conducted again at the police station in greater detail.

In most states, including Colorado and Florida, you can refuse to take the roadside tests without suffering any penalty. Even so, if the officer observes the smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, bad balance, slurred speech or other signs of intoxication, he usually has enough probable cause to believe you are impaired, and therefore can arrest you on a charge of drunk driving. However, in some circumstances your refusal to take roadside tests could be used against you in court, though it will not be evidence enough to convict you.

CAN A PERSON BE ARRESTED ON THE ROAD MERELY BECAUSE THE POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED TO SMELL ALCOHOL ON HIS OR HER BREATH?

While the odor may not be enough to warrant an arrest, that fact combined with others, such as bloodshot or watery eyes, slurred speech or the manner of driving prior to the stop, may give the officer probable cause to arrest the driver.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN OFFICER ASKS A PERSON TO TAKE A ROADSIDE BREATH TEST?

In a roadside test, also known as a preliminary breath test, an officer gets an immediate measurement of your alcohol level by asking you to breathe into a specially designed bag or a tube. The test does not usually substitute for a formal blood or breathalyzer test, but it can be used to determine that enough probable cause exists to arrest you. You may refuse to take the test, but that won't prevent the officer from arresting you if there is enough other evidence that you are drunk.

CAN A PERSON REFUSE TO TAKE THE BREATHALYZER AT THE STATION?

You can, but it is not a good idea. Your refusal may make it harder for the prosecution to obtain a conviction, but because of the trend to greater stringency you can still get convicted on the basis of the roadside tests and other police testimony. You don't even have the right to a lawyer at this point in the process, because a breath or blood sample is considered "non-testimonial" evidence.

In an attempt to ensure compliance, all states have adopted what are known as implied consent (also called express consent) laws that apply to testing for alcohol in the blood, breath or urine, and most states also have such laws that apply to testing for the use of drugs. The principle underlying these laws is that any licensed driver who operates a vehicle has implicitly (that is, without stating it) consented to submit to approved tests for purposes of detecting alcohol or other chemical substances to show intoxication.

Nonetheless, even with these "implied consent" laws, you may still refuse to take a breath, blood or urine test, BUT the state can punish you for such a refusal with higher fines or jail terms. In many states you also risk having your license revoked quickly, after a summary hearing, simply because you refused. You can be convicted even if you were sober and refused to cooperate because you objected to the police show of power.

The drawbacks of refusal don't stop there: If you refuse, go to trial and are convicted, your penalty often will be harsher than if you agreed to cooperate and take the test. You will probably lose your driving privilege for 6 to 18 months, depending on whether it it is your first refusal or not.

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD THE POLICE ASK FOR A BLOOD OR URINE SAMPLE RATHER THAN A BREATH TEST?

Whenever there is serious injury or death as the result of an accident, police will want to get a blood sample from drivers because such tests are more scientifically solid than breath tests and will stand up better in court. State statutes and judicial interpretations of an individual's right to due process generally require that blood be drawn by medical personnel -- usually at a hospital or other medical facility.

Because drugs are more easily traced in urine than in blood, someone arrested on suspicion of impairment through drugs may be asked to take a urine test. Since this is not an "invasive procedure" like a blood test and does not require special training to adminster, it may sometimes be done at the police station rather than at a hospital.

CAN A DRIVER INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT WHERE SOMEONE IS INJURED OR KILLED REFUSE A BLOOD TEST?

In these instances, a person's right to refuse a test is severely restricted. If the police have probable cause to believe that a driver is impaired, they can and do use a reasonable amount of force to require the driver to submit to a blood test. While this test must be performed by medical personnel, the fact remains that the police have the right in this situation to apply force.

In addition to drunk driving penalties, a driver involved in a fatal accident could face criminal charges of assault, manslaughter, and even homicide. There may also be civil penalties.

WHAT ARE THE TYPICAL PENALTIES FOR DRUNK DRIVING?

A conviction for drunk driving usually carries with it some stiff penalties. And while these penalties will vary from state to state, they will generally entail the loss of a driver's license for a specified amount of time, a fine, and possibly jail time. Other penalties may include probation, community service, driver rehabilitation school, and substance abuse counseling.

The high profile and get-tough policy has developed because drunk driving has been targeted as a terrible social problem that has potential for improvement. Organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), led by parents who have lost children in drunk driving accidents, have been extremely effective in stirring public outrage and lobbying for tougher laws.

Their success has been aided by the fact that possessing a driver's license and operating a motor vehicle is NOT A RIGHT of every citizen, but a privilege extended by the state in which you live. The license is issued under a state's regulation, and a state may revoke it. The courts have given police wide discretion when dealing with the enforcement of motor vehicle laws. A citizen usually has fewer rights when driving a car than when walking on the street or residing at home.

Penalties vary sharply by state, but in all cases are highest for accidents in which others are injured or killed, and for repeat offenders. Sometimes a driver is arrested on a manslaughter charge immediately after a fatal crash, if there is probable cause to believe the driver was drunk.

As for post-conviction sentences, some states have statutes requiring mandatory jail time--ranging from 48 consecutive hours to two years--for a drunk driving conviction for anyone whose drinking caused a death or an injury. Some states also require driving school and alcohol or drug rehabilitation, and in some cases judges may sentence offenders to do community service in emergency rooms and morgues.

The following shows a general range of penalties imposed after conviction on drivers who were arrested in accidents or in incidents in which there were no injuries or major damage:

For a first conviction with no injury or major damage:

1) A fine ranging from $100 to $5,000, and or, 2) Imprisonment for up to 2 years, and or, 3) Loss of driving privilege for a certain period of time (usually ranging from 30 days to three years)

For a second conviction on a similar charge:

1) A fine ranging from $200 to $5,000, and or, 2) Imprisonment up to two years, and or, 3) Loss of driving privilege for up to five years. For a third conviction on a similar charge:

1) A fine ranging from $300 to $150,000 and or, 2) Imprisonment for up to six years, and or, 3) Loss of driving privilege for 180 days to a permanent revocation.

CAN AN INSURER LEGALLY RAISE A PERSON'S RATES BECAUSE OF A DRUNK DRIVING CONVICTION?

Yes. A very costly aspect of a conviction for drunk driving is the price of insurance. Basically, insurers can charge sky-high fees and raise the rates of convicted drivers. In some states--New Jersey, for example--a person convicted of drunk driving must pay a mandatory $1000 per year auto insurance payment for three consecutive years, in addition to any court-imposed penalties and fines. This is added to the increase that will inevitably--and legally-- occur in a driver's automobile insurance premiums.

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PREVENT A CONVICTION?

There are ways to challenge a drunk driving charge, but it will be difficult to prevail and will require expensive legal advice and possibly the payment of an expert. Success in court is rare. As a result, most drunk driving charges result in guilty pleas.

For those who decide to take it to the mat, it is important to remember that if you fight and lose, a judge will sometimes impose higher penalties. But after hearing all this, you still want to fight (you may, after all, be not guilty). Here are some ways that others have occasionally succeeded:

• You can challenge the breathalyzer test you took, alleging it was improperly administered or malfunctioned. However, be aware that this is becoming much more difficult to do because the test, which used to be mechanical, is now digital and more reliable.
• You can challenge a roadside test as improperly performed or inconclusive, or indeed proof positive that you were sober.
• You can argue that your alcohol level was rising, not falling, at the time of your breathalyzer test at the station. This is generally a last-ditch attempt at defense by repeat offenders; after a driver has had two or three convictions, is in danger of losing his license, and faces serious jail time, he or she may decide it's worth it to fight with this tactic, which is costly but sometimes meets with success.

Here is the logic behind this defense: the body metabolizes alcohol at varying rates. Levels fall and rise with time as the effects wear off. If your level at the station was just a tad over the legal limit of .10 percent--say, .12 percent or .11 percent--you can argue that it had risen in your blood in just the time it took to go from roadside to the station. So you argue it was lower than the legal limit when you were stopped, and you were not drunk driving on the road. You will in all likelihood need an expert to testify whether the breathalyzer level showed a rising or falling level, and the state will enlist its own expert to refute yours. These freelance experts can be very expensive; one well-known expert in Florida flies around the country on these cases and charges $10,000 to a defendant for an appearance.

DO I HAVE TO? YOUR RIGHTS WHEN YOU'RE STOPPED BY THE POLICE

A police officer is motioning you to pull over. What are your rights?

You may REFUSE to:

• Take a roadside test in most states without suffering a penalty. In some states, though, a refusal can be presented as evidence against you in court.
• Take a breath test--but in many states refusal will result in automatic suspension of your license. And in every state, you can still be convicted of drunk driving on other grounds.
• Give permission for a search of your trunk or car interior if the police have no probable cause to conduct the search. You should not be intimidated by the police into giving consent when your really don't want them to do a search-- even if you've got nothing to hide. If the police ignore your refusal and search anyway, you will have a strong argument that anything they found cannot be used against you.

You may NOT REFUSE to:

• Stop your car.
• Give a blood or urine sample when you have been involved in an accident with major damage or injury. The police may apply force to help medical personnel take the sample.

You have no say at all when:

• The police have probable cause to search your car. In this case, they won't ask permission. An unopened six-pack on the front seat usually won't give them probable cause to search, but the smell of marijuana will.
• The police search the interior from the outside with their flashlights, see something illegal and seize it.

The police stop and frisk you IF they have a "reasonably articulable suspicion" that you may be carrying weapons or drugs or other contraband.