Drunk Driving Essay Example for Free

inebriate drive EssayDrunk operate is a primary cause of pass traffic accidents causing deaths and injuries with enormous monetary costs to society. The sot driveway was first recognized as a polity problem in the literature in 1904, approximately 5 years after the first highway traffic fatality in the coupled States (Voas and Lacey). In 1982, the National Highway commerce Safety Administration started keeping statistics of inebriant related crashes by dint of its Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) (Stewart and Fell).In 1982, there were 26,173 intoxicant related fatalities, which constituted 60% of only highway fatalities. In 2002, about 17,419 or roughly 41% of about 42,815 highway fatalities were estimated to be inebriant related which indicates a 19% change since 1982 (Stewart and Fell). Overall, alcohol related traffic fatalities open reduce by about 33% over the last two decades. Policies implemented to curb rummy impetuous in the last two decades seem to have an impact on alcohol related fatalities.FARS info shows a 62% decrease (1. 64 to . 61) in alcohol related fatality rate since 1982 (Stewart and Fell). The world(a) decline in the alcohol related fatalities for the general population is believed to be due to a faction of deterrent found laws, increased alcohol awareness and decrease in alcohol consumption, increased familiarity about rule oution, and general car safety measures (Stewart and Fell). Starting 1980s, sot madcap has been c formerlyptualized as a evil arbitrator numeral.With the effect of M otherwisewises A amplificationst Drunk Driving (MADD) and about other citizen activist mathematical groups, the issue has pass away a existence form _or_ formation of government problem in which rum drivers are defined as sinful cause of deaths who suck up and drive irresponsibly and claim lives of exculpatory victims. These efforts, according to Ross, created a dominant paradigm which focuses on the guilty driver. Thus, framing the issue as of a sin and drunk drivers as deviants has dominated the indemnitymaking process and brotherlyly constructed the drunk drivers as a target group with disallow connotations in creation mind (Meier).Policymakers responded the demands by legislating stricter deterrent based measures to punish those criminal drunk drivers and deter drunk ride to pitch lives (Ross). Therefore, it is important to examine how drunk brainish emerged as a policy problem and how deterrent based laws are introduced and accepted as a solution to the problem. This paper examines also the effects of MADD on rule of drunk hotheaded laws and effects of those laws on alcohol related fatalities. BackgroundThe struggle against drunk driving as a traffic safety problem began in late 1960s. Before 1960s, the federal governments see on states drunk driving policies was minimal. The national character and seriousness of traffic safety problems prompted mulctgress to d ecree the Highway Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act, in 1966. In 1967, the deposit of Transportation officially promulgated the first federal drunk driving standards in the National render Standards for State Highway Safety Programs.One of the requirements of this program was for each state to utilize chemical tests for find blood alcohol levels (BAC) and to enact BAC holds of no owing(p)er than . 10 % (Evans et al. ). If an individual is found to be driving with a BAC over a certain threshold they would be arrested for drunk driving. Those standards came with the threat of reducing highway funds for noncompliance. Although some states viewed the 1967 standards and the threats of reducing highway funds as interfering with their sovereign function, they complied with the new standards to recruit in highway construction projects.By 1981 all states had adopted the specific standard of . 10 BAC or a lower level. In 1982, the Presidential Commission on Drunk D riving was created, and the Alcohol Traffic Safety Act of 1982 established a three-year program to provide highway grants for states that adopted certain anti-drunk driving measures (Evans et al. ). In 1983, the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving recommended that states enact a uniform drinking age of twenty-one years. This approach was ineffective only four states had done so by 1984.In response, Congress passed lawmaking requiring highway funding reductions for any state with a drinking age on a lower floor twenty-one in 1984. That strategy was effective as the states soon began to establish twenty-one-year age limits. By 1986, all hardly eight states had adopted the twenty-one-year age limits. By 1989, all states had complied with this federal limit. Congress, by promising grants or threatening to withhold funding (carrot and stick from of coercive federalism), has taken an progressive social occasion in formulating drunk driving policies and in encouraging the states to adopt them (Evans et al.). On October 23, 2000 President Clinton signed Department of Transportation and link Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 that established the first-ever national drunk driving standard at . 08 blood alcohol content (BAC). consort to this legislation, states that do not adopt . 08 BAC laws by 2004 would have 2% of highway construction funds withheld, with the penalisation increasing to 8% by 2007. States adopting the standard by 2007 would be reimbursed for any lost funds. As of February 2004, 46 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have adopted the national .08 BAC standard. The federal BAC limit was the last, but not the least measure established to curb drunk driving. It was, indeed, the culmination of efforts targeting drunk driving which dates stake to early 1980s (MADD). Although a medley of preventative policies including education campaigns, reclamation, and control of alcohol sales have been employed to reduce drunk driving, more than emphasis has been placed on the use of punitive policy tools such as license revocation, increased fines, and mandatory confine time.Policies designed to change undesired look frequently place drunk driving behavior as sinful or deviant, which suggests that drunk driving may constitute a morality policy. Indeed, drunk drivers are a great deal depicted in the media and policy debates as irresponsible killer drunks. The politics around the issue of drunk driving as a morality policy may explain why punitive tools rather than preventive policies have been progressively used in this policy theatre of operations (Meier). Anti-Drunk Driving Policy ControversiesPolicies pertaining to alcohol have been regulated by local, state and the federal governments over the last century, including the prohibition at the turn of the twentieth century. At polar times alcohol has been prohibited, permitted to operate without government control, regulated through licensing, or controlled by monopolies. This policy area is largely controlled by states through a wide range of policies regulating both the sale of alcohol and penalties for alcohol abuse.Although prohibition on drunk driving is a regulatory policy, it has a separate purpose. As Meier points out, rather than restricting access to alcohol, drunk driving policies are intended to punish individuals who abuse alcohol by drinking and driving (687). Over the last two decades states have adopted a variety of punitive policies to prevent drunk driving and its consequences. Since drunk driving is framed as sinful behavior, no one will stand up and support drunk driving.Advocates of drunk driving policies push for stricter measures to nurse transparent victims and in such an environment, rational politicians will perceive that the demand for restrictive policies will be greater than it actually is and, thus, compete for more extreme policies because they always see there is a great support for being tougher on s in (Meier). These policies will be carried out through strict law enforcement by agencies, which will be awarded by the number of arrests made.Therefore, law enforcement agencies will also favor more extreme policies because such policies will create an environment that supports more resources for them (Meier). Furthermore, arresting killer drunks and saving innocent lives will increase their popularity in the eyes of public. In the absence of organized opposition, therefore, drunk driving policies make with the support of the public, politicians, and the bureaucracy- peak to betrothal of coercive tools, which increases the cost of sinful behavior (Ross). As with most public policy issues, this one, too, has many sides.Just as anti-drunk driving movement supporters form alliances for specific efforts, adversaries also work singly and sometimes together depending on the current situation and how their alliances reflect common concerns. Organizations and individuals who appear to oppose the efforts of the anti-drunk driving movement are, in some cases, protecting a different interest or issue, such as business interests and, by extension, the economy (Baum). Despite the strength of the morality policy framework to predict what typesetters case of policy tools would be adopted in this policy domain, legislation of the federal .08 BAC standard departs from this framework on -at least- one major point there was an organized opposition to the legislation. Opponents of the national . 08 BAC limit consisted of interest groups representing alcohol and hospitality industries and a few non-profit groups defending motorists rights. Meier contends that highly salient morality policies permit little role for expertise and the lack of opposition results in avoidance of information that challenges the dominant position. Therefore, morality politics lead to adoption of poorly designed and rarely effective policies.In the case of . 08 BAC legislation, as with many other an ti drunk driving policies, however, existence of such an opposition heated the debate around the effectualness of that standard to prevent drunk driving. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of . 08 BAC limit and level of impairment at different levels of BAC were often cited by both sides of the policy (Meier 689-90). Opponents of the national . 08 BAC limit, however, differed in their solutions rather than in their conception of the issue.Both sides of the drunk driving debate agreed on the problem, but they disagreed on the solutions, which is closely related to the definition of the problem. Opponents and proponents of the legislation defined the problems in similar ways. For example, both sides distinguished good people who drink socially from a small minority of alcohol abusers, blameworthy deviants, who drink and drive irresponsibly. The alcohol and restaurant lobbyists could not and did not deny the existence of drunk driving problem. Furthermore, they accepted an obligatio n to contribute to the reduction of the problem (Baum).However, they defended that . 08 BAC limit would not contact those abusers but would punish the responsible social drinkers, which in turn negatively would affect alcohol sales. They argued that most fatal accidents involving BAC levels below . 10 were alcohol related, not alcohol caused. In almost all alcohol caused fatal accidents, drivers have had an average BAC level of . 17. Therefore, lowering BAC limit to . 08 would not prevent drunk driving. Instead, some other measures such as strict administrative license suspension, and frequent dispassion checks by law enforcement should be administered.Proponents of the . 08 BAC legislation, on the other hand, argued that everyones safe driving skills are dangerously impaired at this level, and nearly one-fourth of traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers with a BAC level of . 10 or less (Meier 691-92). Anti-Drunk Driving Movement and MADD According to Reinarman, the anti-drun k driving movement did not spring from a break in the prevalence of drunk driving or in accidents related to it, but from the fact that the injustices (or negative externalities) attributed to drunk driving have never been treated seriously by legislators and courts.Indeed, before 1980s drunk driving had been seen merely a traffic offense. The morality policy focus of the Reagan administration created the suitable temper in which the claims of MADD affected the public and legislators (Reinarman). MADD was founded as a non-profit victims rights organization concerned with advocating for and counseling victims and bereaved relatives, and supervise courtrooms. Although many members of MADD are victims or bereaved victims of drunk drivers, general community activists (non-victim) have also been active in many chapters.A study on a national sample of 125 MADD chapters indicated that exploitation alone does not cause activism (Weed). Moreover, victim and non-victim activists share sim ilar social backgrounds and already participate in other voluntary associations, which reveals that MADD tends to be run by activists who have been victimized rather than victims who have become activists (Ross). Despite its inception as a victims rights organization, MADD has been blamed for becoming a neo-prohibitionist movement (Hanson).The goal of the organization, Hanson claims, is no longer preventing alcohol related accidents but preventing drinking. Moreover, MADD members are accused of seeking vengeance through acid penalties either than rehabilitation and prevention. Reinarman points out that MADDs goals include the demand for justice or vengeance on the group that took lives of friends and children, which warrants harsh punishment whether deterrence is achieved. He also contends that in the case of drunk driving, the purpose of jail is generally social revenge, not accident prevention.Advocates of MADD, on the other hand, have always pointed out the public education prog rams, victim assistance, and legislative activism as their agenda items. Regardless of the objectives mentioned above, MADD has managed to make drunk driving a major public problem. Its approach to the problem assumes that the victim in an alcohol related accident is innocent the drunk drivers behavior is willful and it is a crime which should be dealt in the criminal justice system and harsh punishment is effective in reducing drunk driving by the threat of swift, certain, and barren penalties.By working against the alcohol industrys promotion of drinking in general, MADD has focused on the negative externalities created by the drunk driver -framing the issue as a deviant behavior (Ross). This strategy allowed the movement to gain support even from the alcohol industry itself. Starting from being a small group of women to a nationwide organization with over 600 chapters across 50 states, MADD has become the most influential citizen group fighting drunk driving.The organizations 2 003-2004 annual report shows that its assets reached more than $28 million and revenues more than $53 million (MADD). As with other anti-drunk driving laws, MADD was the main actor behind the federal . 08 BAC legislation. With support of other non-profit organizations, MADD members brought the issue to the public attention. They lobbied key members of Congress, organized media campaigns, participated in press events and other activities, and published fact sheets and statistical information demonstrating the implication of the policy initiative (Ross).They not only contacted the president and obtained his support, but also reached both Democrat and republican members of the Congress gaining bipartisan support, necessary for passage of the legislation. MADD saw the fight for . 08 BAC as a fight for public safety. Karolyn Nunnallee, the president of the organization, once said, The danger imposed by a drunk driver does not deterrent at State lines. Neither should the standards that define drunk driving (190). Conclusion Like many other public policy issues, drunk driving can also be defined and addressed in several ways with every definition proposing a different solution.Contrary to the dominant paradigm, for example, drunk driving can be considered as a public health issue. Then the solution would be rehabilitation of offenders rather than imposing sanctions on them. However, efforts of MADD and other grassroots organizations to define the problem in criminal justice terms by describing the problem as of a sin committed by irresponsible killer drunks against innocent victims succeed over other possible definitions of the problem as well as the solutions connected to them (Meier).Their success of the definition of the problem yielded social construction of the target group as deviants with negative connotations and promiscuous political power who deserve sanctions either than rehabilitation. Although proponents of drunk driving policies have been successful in defining the issue in terms of sin that no one could stand for it, opponents were also successful to some extent in addressing the issue by questioning the effectiveness of deterrent based policies.They were able to frame the issue in such a manner that opposition became legitimate. Meier contends that when the opponents are able to change the social construction of the debate from sin to some other dimension, the redistributive nature of the policy becomes open and adjudge (694). At this point, we can hold that the drunk driving issue was transformed from the politics of sin to the politics of redistribution when alcohol and hospitality industries considered that the stricter laws -as in the case of federal .08 BAC legislation- would threat alcohol sales. They were not successful, however, in changing issue entirely from being a policy of sin and could not defend drunk driving, but punctuate the potential inefficiency of measures to curb drunk driving. Moreover, they could not sustain holding that position over time and once again the dominant definition of the problem prevailed yielding more punitive tools to deter drunk driving. MADD has been acknowledged as the driving force that transformed drunk driving into a public problem which warrants governmental action.Moreover, MADD as a citizen advocacy group is an important factor in shaping policies in American states. The results provided evidence for the effects of MADD not only on states adoption of anti-drunk driving laws but also adoption of traffic safety measures in general. Works Cited Baum, Scott. Drink Driving as a Social fuss Comparing the Attitudes and Knowledge of Drink Driving Offenders and the command Community. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 32 (2000) 689-694. Evans, William N. , Doreen Neville, and John D. Graham.General Deterrence of Drunk Drivers Evaluation of Recent American Policies. Risk Analysis. 11 (1991) 279-289. Hanson, David J. Mothers Against Drunk Driving A Crash Co urse in MADD, 2002 http//www. alcoholfacts. org/CrashCourseOnMADD. html MADD. Saving Lives Mothers Against Drunk Driving Annual Report 2003-2004, 2004. Meier, Kenneth J. (1994). The governing of Sin Drugs, Alcohol, and Public Policy. Armonk, NY M. E. Sharpe. Meier, Kenneth J. Drugs, Sex, Rock, and Roll A Theory of Morality Politics. Policy Studies Journal. 27 (4) (1999) 681-695.Nunnallee, Karolyn. Pro Con Should Congress Pass . 08 Blood-Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Drunk Driving Standard? Congressional Digest. 11 (6-7) (1998) 178-191. Reinarman, Craig. The Social wrench of an Alcohol Problem The Case of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and Social Control in 1980s. Theory and Society. 17 (1988) 91-120. Ross, H. Laurence. Confronting Drunk Driving Social Policy for Saving Lives. New Haven, CT Yale University Press, 1992 Stewart, Kathryn and James Fell. Trends in Impaired Driving in the United States Complacency or Backsliding? In Daniel R. Mayhew and Claude Dussault eds. Proceedings of the 16th International gathering on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Montreal, Canada, August 4-9, 2002. Voas, Robert B. and John H. Lacey. Drunk Driving Enforcement, Adjudication, and Sanctions in the United States. in R. jean Wilson and Robert E. Mann eds. Drinking and Driving Advances in Research and Prevention. New York, NY The Guildford Press, 1990 Weed, Frank J. The Victim-Activist Role in the Anti-Drunk Driving Movement. The sociological Quarterly. 31 (3) (1990) 459-473.