I don't think anyone is "pro" drunk driving, but I’ll be the first to admit it; there is a resentment in recovery circles when the subject of license revocation and other penalties for DUI are discussed. I’ve participated in groups where MADD is spoke of with open hostility because of legislation they have enabled which many believe to be just punitive rather than preventative. Much of this animosity is created by the requirement of courts that offenders must attend recovery programs and outpatient treatment while at the same time taking away their ability (driver’s license) to accomplish this task. This does not stop an alcoholic from driving, yet it may very well be instrumental in obstructing the potential recovery opportunity that a brush with the law offers.
While holding a similar opinion on the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license, I feel the problem lies more with the recovery community and our failure to communicate with the judicial system, law enforcement, and advocacy groups like MADD. The fight against drunk driving has traditionally focused more upon the act itself and less about the underlying causes. Raising both awareness and the drinking age while lowering the BAC standard for impairment has proven to discourage driving under the influence. New technology such as ignition interlocks are being explored to reduce repeat offenders. While measures taken over the last few decades have certainly been effective in reducing drunk driving, but what of the alcoholics, those of us that will drink, and drive, despite all preventive measures and consequences?
Click “Read more” to continue…
