In 1994 Texas lawmakers labeled checkpoints as unconstitutional unless they could be created using a clear set of guidelines that protected individual rights; since then, several bills aimed at that goal have shriveled in the Texas Senate. The latest effort by John Carona (R-Dallas) looks like it may have the best chance of becoming law. Here’s a full text of what’s being proposed, and another article from Pegasus News that summarizes the main points nicely.

You’ve got to empathize with both sides of the argument. On one, you have Texas MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drink Driving) and their supporters asking why we won’t have checkpoints to curtail the epidemic of drunk driving fatalities and accidents in Texas, which leads the nation in such statistics.

On the other, we have civil-liberty proponents (and the defense attorneys of Texas, I think) warning us about the destruction of “probable cause” and the slippery slope that checkpoints may lead us down.

I can’t help but feel bad about siding with either camp. I if I go with checkpoint proponents, I’m curtailing some of my beliefs about individual liberties and my general wariness about 1984 style crackdowns. On the other hand, going with the libertarian camp somewhat ignores research data that shows checkpoints do seem to lower drunk driving incidents, while subtly implying that I’m for drunk driving in general. It’s like those volunteers who ask you to adopt a third-world orphan – you can’t help but feel like your endorsing the “children dying in decrepit poverty” camp by turning them down. That’s not a giant-foam finger you want to be wearing.

So, after much soul-searching, it’s with a reluctant firmness that I’ll side with sobriety checkpoint advocates. My reasoning arises from several points. One, 39 other states have legalized such checkpoints so far without a great amount of public outcry over unlawful searches, discrimination, or general abuse concerning their use. Second, I do feel something besides the current state-of-affairs is needed to address drunk driving in Texas. I hear too many news stories about perfectly sober families and kids being obliterated by drunk drivers, and I’ll confess my general reaction to this is, “Terrible, that’s absolutely terrible”, without another moment’s thought about how we can address the problem.

Texans are still some of the most independent citizens there are in the U.S., so even if these checkpoints become legal that doesn’t mean we’ll suddenly let Big Brother stroll right in. I for one will be listening for any checkpoint abuses, and I’ll wager I’m not the only one doing so. This current legislation does a good job of outlining firm guidelines that have been lacking from its predecessors; peace officers will definitely be under scrutiny to ensure they’re upheld.

This has been the most difficult issue I’ve had to write about, so I’m eager to hear your feedback. But keep in mind if you disagree with me, you’re obviously a drunk-driving murdering psychopath.

When the condom-distribution ban was enacted, the county decided to push a pro-abstinence only platform. The results were less than promising, highlighted in 2006-07 when Dallas County had the highest rate of HIV infection in Texas.

The county health department, the county medical director and the Dallas County Medical Society – in other words, the people who know what they are talking about – all supported re-enacting the condom-distribution policy.

Pfft. But what do these “medical directors” know about upholding the upstanding moral fiber of our population? Detractors to the policy claimed that free condoms at health clinics would encourage kids to engage in deviant sexual behavior – even gayness! One such council member proposed a compromise: give condoms only to those who are already infected, have had sex with infected people, or who have had sex with a prostitute – no condoms to the uninfected looking for safe sex. Huh?

The moralistic side has one undeniable argument: abstaining from sex is the most reliable way to avoid any STD. But the other side of the argument is just as irrefutable: there is going to be a large part of the population, religious or not, that chooses to engage in sex. With those two mutual truths against one another, there are two options: a) we singularly plan on people not having sex and conversely don’t provide safeguards for those who do or b) we hope people will abstain from sex and take measures to limit the consequences from those who don’t. One option puts all our eggs in one basket; the other option provides public safeguards.

I would be more willing to listen to the “abstinence only” argument if it wasn’t a blatant way to inject religious morality into public health. But it is.

Kudos to the council for (finally) reversing this ill-advised ban.