Gov. Bobby Jindal proposed strict legislation concerning drunk driving earlier this month.Jindal wants to increase penalties for those driving with licenses suspended because of DWIs, streamline the DWI prosecution process and increase the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer test. The last proposal has generated the most controversy, because of the perceived Fifth Amendment infringement it embodies.If it indeed violates our constitutional rights, then Louisiana has been breaching the Constitution for years. Penalties for refusing a breathalyzer test are not new here, they have simply passed unnoticed because of their lax nature.As the law stands, the first two times a driver refuses to submit to a breathalyzer, they are subjected to mediocre punishments including restricted licenses and limited license suspensions. Penalties increase for subsequent offenses.Criminal penalties are not issued until the third refusal of the breathalyzer. When a driver refuses a third time, they are charged with the same penalties as a first offense DWI conviction: a fine between $300 and $1000 and imprisonment from 10 days to six months.The current law gives the driver incentive to refuse the breathalyzer the first two times, rather than submit to the test and face the fine. Consequently, the punishment is removed from the crime and does not punish drunk driving effectively.A slap on the wrist is not enough of a deterrent.”We must change the culture of acceptance in our state when it comes to drinking and driving,” said Louisiana State Police Col. Mike Edmonson in the governor’s press release earlier this month. Edmonson’s view is justified, given nearly half of the people killed in car crashes in Louisiana in 2007 were victims of drunk driving.Lowering incentive to refuse the breathalyzer — thereby encouraging drivers to take responsibility for their own sobriety —  is the best way to change Louisiana’s attitude toward drunk driving.Jindal’s proposed legislation will lower incentive because it is very strict and pre-emptive by default. He plans to increase the penalty of the first refusal to match the penalty of the third refusal. Essentially, this means the penalty for refusing would be equal to the penalty of being convicted for a DWI.Champions of the Fifth Amendment are offended, charging that equating the penalty for refusal to the penalty for submitting would infringe upon the Constitution. They argue the new legislation would “force” the driver to provide self-incriminating evidence.There are two problems with this argument. The first is a mere technicality. The driver still has a choice, in theory, though the punishments for either choice would be the same.The second error is assumed absence of implied consent.When you register for a driver’s license in Louisiana, you are giving your implied consent that you will submit to field sobriety testing at an officer’s request. Consequently, you also agree to be punished if you refuse to submit.This contract between the licensed driver and the state does not concern the Fifth Amendment. Both parties are bound in agreement to one another through signed contract, one designed to safe-keep state regulated public transit systems.This is not about curbing liberties for the sake of being oppressive. Jindal’s proposed legislation only aims to reduce casualties caused by irresponsible drunk drivers.Nobody has the “right” to drive drunk and nobody has the “right” to exemption from the legal ramifications of driving drunk.If anything, the residents of Louisiana have the right to expect a legal system that is unwavering and pre-emptive, and a streamlined method for dealing with violators of this system.Linnie Leavines is an 18-year-old mass communication freshman from Central City.——Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]