While Ohio should be commended for looking to combat drunk driving, stripping citizens of civil liberties is the wrong approach.

A provision in Senate Bill 176 would establish the presumption of guilt if drivers refuse the breathalizer test.

When a state trooper suspects an impaired driver, divided-attention sobriety tests are conducted. These include the finger-to-nose touch, heel-toe walk, one-leg stand and the "gaze test" that traces involuntary eye movements.

Troopers have the authority to arrest a driver based on the test results. But at the station, the driver still has the right to refuse a blood-alcohol test. With this presumption of guilt provision, the trooper would assume the driver is legally intoxicated.

Drunk driving is a serious and dangerous, and this issue needs attention. But taking away someone's civil liberties and right to choose is not the way to combat driving under the influence.

Under the United States Constitution, we are innocent until proven guilty, and it is not the job of the police to make that decision. They only collect the evidence. It is up to the courts to determine guilt or innocence.

But this problem should not be ignored.

Instead of punishing people for exercising their Constitutional rights, there should be stiffer penalties for offenders. They should have their licenses suspended and cars impounded on their first offense.

One driver who is under the influence of alcohol has the potential to harm everyone on the road. We should strengthen the laws we have to fight this, not take away our civil liberties.