Opinions - (Canada) It's the driving, not the drinking

[Euphoric]

It's the driving, not the drinking

Neo-temperance crusaders like MADD are dangerously missing the point about cars and booze, argues an academic who studies drinking and its social history

Jan 17, 2009 04:30 AM

By the time we're 16, we've all heard "Don't Drink and Drive." Many of us make the obvious choice: Driving is highly overrated.

On behalf of those who haven't, however, this week, Toronto lawyers Alan Young and Joseph Neuberger are challenging the elimination of the "two-beer" defence in intoxicated driving trials, which went into effect last July 2.

It might seem like poor timing for the lawyers, given that the other major recent news regarding intoxicated driving this week are the charges laid against Port Carling's Lake Joseph Club staff and members of the Board of Directors in the tragedy of three young people who died July 3, 2008, the very day after the "two-beer" defence was turfed.

In light of the well-known Lake Joseph case, it might appear as if Young and Neuberger are defending drinking and driving. MADD Canada, which campaigned to have the "two-beer" defence stricken, for example, has been quick to state its opposition.

But, in fact, Young and Neuberger are only working to ensure that the system works properly, so that offenders who are a real danger to public safety can be prosecuted. What's at stake is the reliability of breath-analyzer machines, since the lawyers claim that the state-used technology is shrouded in secrecy. (Because lawyers have no access to the machines [or even their manuals] there is the question of a misleading result if the second of two drinks was consumed immediately before the test was administered.)

In other words, the elimination of the defence was another step toward the criminalization of social drinking. At least when said social drinking is combined with driving.

The thing is we rarely talk about the driving part of the equation. From Transport Canada's Smashed publication, for example, there are many pages devoted to how hosts can provide non-alcoholic and "mocktail" options or stop serving alcohol halfway through so guests can sober up. But the message that there's another option – namely, not driving – seems to be getting lost.

Not driving, after all, would be a pretty simple solution. And for many of us in the urban core, drinking and driving is almost never an issue. What's more, in an age of ubiquitous cellphones and cabs, which take everything from Interac to American Express, choosing to take a taxi in advance is kind of a no-brainer – even in a rural area. But the fact that so much emphasis is put on reforming drinking and not driving betrays the underlying morality that drives the campaign.

Driving is, all on its own, a risky behaviour. It's much riskier than drug use, for example, if we look at the numbers that lead to fatalities. Driving results in nearly 3,000 fatalities in Canada per year. The number that can be attributed to alcohol is hard to nail down precisely but, in 2005, fewer than 40 per cent of the drivers in fatal collisions had consumed alcohol at all, let alone an amount above the legal limit of 0.08 per cent.

Other factors can make driving riskier yet. Obviously, alcohol is a major one and there is no question that some 20 per cent of fatal collisions involve really high BAC (blood alcohol content) levels – above 0.16 per cent. And it must be pointed out that it is this very small group of repeat heavy drinking offenders – not the two-drink crowd – that causes nearly 50 per cent of the fatalities.

Stopping this behaviour – and the resulting deaths – ought to be the goal of all involved. However, public safety advocates never adopt quite the same moral high-pitch when addressing the also risky driving while texting, eating, applying make-up or being a teenager.

The fact that the moral outrage is confined mainly to alcohol consumption betrays the influence of moral "Puritanism" (for lack of a better word) that is the foundation for much of the reform movement. We have a separate language and tone reserved for risky behaviours that also get us high than for those that are done in the name of increasing productivity.

This is evident with MADD, which, many have alleged, has strayed from its original mandate as an organization committed to eliminating impaired driving and morphed into a neo-temperance organization. While MADD vociferously denies this, a look at its mandate will reveal otherwise. Aside from its campaign to reduce legal BAC levels from .08 to .05 (which might well criminalize the behaviour of, say, a small-framed woman drinking a glass of Sauvignon Blanc with dinner and then driving home) MADD works in partnership with Health Canada and the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse to promote "Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines," aimed at changing the public's drinking patterns – whether they are diving or not. A good look at MADD's literature will reveal that it is also concerned about the blood alcohol level in pedestrian fatalities.

Wait for it: Don't Drink and Walk is an idea whose time has come.

Some may argue that MADD ought to make no apologies in its attempt to reform our drinking habits. Maybe we could all stand to drink a little less. But the problem with this is that abstinence movements and tight criminalization of morality often backfires.

The spectacularly successful Silver Ring movement in America managed to delay the age of participating teens losing their virginity by as much as two years. However, the guilt and shame that accompanied their eventual de-flowering led them to reject condoms and engage in far riskier behaviour. By defining sex as an immoral option, it closed down an avenue for conversation about safe sex. This is one of many examples in which moral approbation of a behaviour has led to unsafe conditions.

The same is true of drinking and driving. By concentrating only on the drinking and not on the driving, we have managed to pathologize only the alcohol part of the behaviour. As a result, many are unrealistic and in denial about the amount they will drink and have drunk and, therefore, choose to drive on the basis of their idealized behaviour – not the actual.

Imagine a TV campaign along these lines: A young woman looks into the mirror and says, "I'm setting out to get smashed tonight. I'm going to do shots and dance on tables. But I'm going to make the decision not to drive right now." Then she tosses her keys on to the vanity and walks out with confidence.

Well, don't hold your breath for that one. It would encourage young women to drink – obviously. But a straight campaign that recognized people drink to get inebriated and encouraged people to be realistic about whether or not they were out to have one relaxing beer in the sun or, instead, an afternoon of 31 drinks at a golf club on a summer's day, might just accomplish a whole lot more in terms of the reduction of fatalities than making it illegal for people to drink two beers and drive.

People are, after all, going to drink. Making them feel like pariahs about it will only make them unrealistic about whether or not they drive.

Or, like many of the rest of us, walk.

Toronto's Christine Sismondo is the author of Mondo Cocktail: A Shaken and Stirred History (McArthur & Co.)

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/572585