FREE ESSAY ON ALCOHOL MISUSE AMONG MINORS (UK)

ALCOHOL MISUSE AMONG MINORS (UK)

Ellen Wichmann 5SK 
Discursive Essay
Alcoholic drinks, in today's society, have become an accepted part of social life.
However, when alcohol is mixed with driving, catastrophic consequences can occur. In
fact, 1 in 5 fatal accidents on our roads are directly related to alcohol. Is our
government doing enough to deter people from drinking and driving?
Each week, around 11 people die from driving above the legal limit, just under half of
whom being people other than the drink drivers themselves. A further 300 people are
injured. An additional number of people are also killed or injured as a result of driving
with a raised blood alcohol limit, but are still within the law.
The current legal limit is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.
According to the law, driving with this amount of alcohol can mean 12-18 months
disqualification or up to 6 months imprisonment, one of the most lenient sentences in the
European Union. This, in my opinion, is unacceptable.
In Europe, strict laws, high-impact anti-drink driving campaigns and extensive education
on the effects of alcohol are the reason for the high standards of driving and the low
alcohol related mortality rates. In my opinion, that is exactly the type of approach
Britain should be taking to combat drink driving. More police power and more frequent
breathalysing would target the 'high risk' offenders, who fall into the category of 19-24
year old males, while a higher amount and standard of drugs and alcohol education for
11-16 year olds would provoke future drivers to reconsider driving while intoxicated. The
education which I received on alcohol and drug abuse was minimal and ineffective. There
was little, if any, mention of drink driving. 
The government, in fact, seems to be doing little to oppose the issue. I feel certain
that a more thorough written paper as part of the driving exam to ensure people know the
risks of alcohol when driving would be beneficial. I do acknowledge, however, that some
politicians such as the former European Commissioner for Transport, Neil Kinnock, call
for the limit to be reduced to 50mg/100ml. This is a common limit throughout Europe and
is far more acceptable.
This limit is enforced in Holland, Finland, Austria, France and Germany, to name but a
few, and significant reductions in deaths and serious injuries have been recorded.
Holland, for example, which has had a 50mg limit for over 20 years, has a much lower rate
of alcohol related road deaths the UK, 1 in 15 (7%) compared with 1 in 5 (20%). In 1995,
Great Britain had 540 alcohol related road deaths while Holland had only 87. 
This limit reduction to 50mg has also been enforced outside of the EU. In Australia,
lowering the legal limit, combined with random breathalysing, showed a staggering 90% cut
of people driving between 50mg and 80mg, and a 41% decrease in drivers over 150mg, thus
many people remained unaffected by the consequences of drink driving, saving their
government millions of dollars.
It is clear that Britain is in the minority of countries still with this outdated law of
80mg, along with Luxembourg and Denmark, both of which have a similarly high mortality
rate. 
The British government prides itself as being a highly organised, efficient and dedicated
government, caring for us, the people. It is unclear to me exactly why this government
continues to ignore this issue which takes an average of 570 lives every year.
The government had opted to introduce the lower limit in early 1998, but it was
dismissed. A report substantiating their decision, on any other grounds apart from money
issues, it seems, is unavailable. I fail to understand why money could be an issue, for
any other reason other than the government's mishandling of millions of pounds of tax
payer's money. Over ?208 million is spent on traffic accidents / damage related to
alcohol; and around ?224 million on treatment for alcohol related injuries. Incorporating
various other factors, such as costs of crimes, the total can be estimated at around ?3.7
billion per year. It is barely believable that our government could spend this amount of
money so inefficiently. This money could easily be invested in preventative measures
rather than the aftermath. In 1996, a mere ?1.2 million was spent on prevention campaigns
and research. Logically these campaigns would be much more effective with even a tenth of
?3.7 billion. However, the government's answer to this problem is to make our alcohol
taxation rates some of the highest in the E.U.
The Alcohol and Driving Safety Act of 1967 founds the basis of our current penalties,
updated in 1981 by the Transport Act and again in 1983 with the introduction of
breathalysers. Since then, no further amendments have occurred. Adoption of the Act of
1967 is estimated to have saved 5000 lives and 200000 injuries between 1967 and 1974.
However, its efficiency slowly decreased during the 1970's. Mortality rates, which were
24% prior to the Act, fell to 15% during the first 10 years. In the 1974, on the other
hand, this figure shot up to an unacceptable 34%, the highest ever recorded in Britain. A
new law was needed then, but, unlike Holland, none materialised.
It is difficult to predict the number of lives that would be saved by a limit of 50mg,
but given the evidence from other countries, it may well be between 200 and 300 lives.
The figure may, however, be much higher. The beneficial effects of the introduction of
the breathalyser in 1967 were greatly underestimated. Baroness Barbara Castle, the
Minister responsible, hoped that up to 200 lives would be saved, in fact it was over
1000. 
In my opinion, the current limit is too high and cannot be supported on scientific
grounds. In 1959, Professor GC Drew tested drivers on a simulator with small amounts of
alcohol. He found the relation between error and blood alcohol level to be a straight
line, one directly proportional to the other. His report concluded that alcohol has "no
threshold, behaviour begins to deteriorate as soon as any alcohol enters the blood
stream."
A lower limit is far overdue and over 46,400,000 people (over 80% of the population)
supported this in a survey carried out in May 1999. Indeed, many agree with this and over
4 in 10 would even support a zero limit. This, as far as I am concerned, would be by far
the safest option, but by no means practical and is highly unlikely to ever pass. The
disturbing truth is that the risk of having an accident doubles at 50mg and increases
nine fold at 80 mg. 
The fact remains that drink driving is a huge problem and it demands to be tackled. 
No. of words: 1,127