Sunday, January 01, 2006
The Drinking and Driving Contradiction
Today was New Year's Day, and you know what that meant last night. It meant people out partying and drinking, and police out in force to catch people with sobriety tests and arrest those that drive while under the influence of alcohol.
They do this all the time, but still people get caught driving and drinking, and even worse yet, they continue to cause accidents, some serious. They catch driver after driver but the problem keeps coming back. To me it seems that we are using the wrong approach to the drinking and driving problem, and that the entire problem exists because of a contradiction that has been established in our society, and when a contradiction occurs, anything goes. P & not-P -> Q for all P and Q.
The drinking and driving paradox can be stated like this:
1. It is good to go to parties at holiday time.
2. Drinking at a party helps one enjoy the party.
3. Most places where people can drink (e.g., bars and nightclubs) are far enough way that one has to drive to get there.
4. One needs to drive to get back home.
5. Driving after one has been drinking is strongly discouraged or even forbidden.
These statements contradict each other. In particular, 1 and 2 say that one should go somewhere toher than home to party and drink, 3 says you must drive there, 4 says you need to drive while drunk, and 5 says you must not drive while drunk. That's a contradiction.
No wonder anything goes at parties. For anything goes in a contradiction. Statements 1-5 imply that one should and should not drive while drunk, that police should arrest drunk drivers and that police should leave them alone, that one can walk to bars 5 miles away because they are less than 1 mile way, because 5 is less than 1 and so forth.
Of course what a contradiction really means is that at least one of the statements 1-5 is false. However, our society operates as if all of them are true. To solve the problem of drinking and driving, one must falsify one of the statements. Which one should it be?
Falsifying number 5 clearly is not a good solution. That will lead to higher death tolls on the highways.
Falsifying number 4 is a possibility, but if one has had to drive to a nightclub, one has to drive home again. Of course someone else could drive him home, and this has led to the idea of "designated drivers". But then the partyer has to take a cab or something the next day to get his car back.
Falsifying number 3 means building a bar on every block, so one can walk to a bar or nightclub. This may be feasible in the center of large cities, but elsewhere the population is too thin for this to work. The drunken driving problem is in fact a feature of our car-dependent society, where we made it so we have to drive everywhere. There will be a problem soon with that as the world starts running out of oil. Going back to an urban village style of living will enable one to walk to a bar. Until that happens, falsifying 3 does not appear to be a solution.
Falsifying number 1 takes much of gthe happiness out of life. This means that people can never get together for recreational or off-work purposes. This can damage the morale of people everywhere. If we stop all parties, we can stop much but not all drinking and driving. But would we want to do that?
Perhaps falsifying number 2 is the best strategy. The whole problem exists because people think it is good to go out and drink. Can one have fun at a party without alcoholic beverages? Why do they have to be so necessary? I don't mean prohibiting it because look at what that caused in the 1920s and 1930s. I am saying not to depend on alcohol for a good time. Go out and enjoy being with other people. It's as simple as that.
In support of this, I request that the media refrain from sending out contradictory messages. Don't do a news segment on a horrible drunken driving accident and then show an ad that glorifies Millered-up Beer or whatever. That is sending out mixed messages. As part of this, I am requesting that companies in the alcoholic beverage business stop all pushy ads, including all ads on radio, TV and popups on the Internet. To me, this, along with decreasing our dependence on oil, are the best ways of curing the drunk driver problem and its accompanying contradiction.
They do this all the time, but still people get caught driving and drinking, and even worse yet, they continue to cause accidents, some serious. They catch driver after driver but the problem keeps coming back. To me it seems that we are using the wrong approach to the drinking and driving problem, and that the entire problem exists because of a contradiction that has been established in our society, and when a contradiction occurs, anything goes. P & not-P -> Q for all P and Q.
The drinking and driving paradox can be stated like this:
1. It is good to go to parties at holiday time.
2. Drinking at a party helps one enjoy the party.
3. Most places where people can drink (e.g., bars and nightclubs) are far enough way that one has to drive to get there.
4. One needs to drive to get back home.
5. Driving after one has been drinking is strongly discouraged or even forbidden.
These statements contradict each other. In particular, 1 and 2 say that one should go somewhere toher than home to party and drink, 3 says you must drive there, 4 says you need to drive while drunk, and 5 says you must not drive while drunk. That's a contradiction.
No wonder anything goes at parties. For anything goes in a contradiction. Statements 1-5 imply that one should and should not drive while drunk, that police should arrest drunk drivers and that police should leave them alone, that one can walk to bars 5 miles away because they are less than 1 mile way, because 5 is less than 1 and so forth.
Of course what a contradiction really means is that at least one of the statements 1-5 is false. However, our society operates as if all of them are true. To solve the problem of drinking and driving, one must falsify one of the statements. Which one should it be?
Falsifying number 5 clearly is not a good solution. That will lead to higher death tolls on the highways.
Falsifying number 4 is a possibility, but if one has had to drive to a nightclub, one has to drive home again. Of course someone else could drive him home, and this has led to the idea of "designated drivers". But then the partyer has to take a cab or something the next day to get his car back.
Falsifying number 3 means building a bar on every block, so one can walk to a bar or nightclub. This may be feasible in the center of large cities, but elsewhere the population is too thin for this to work. The drunken driving problem is in fact a feature of our car-dependent society, where we made it so we have to drive everywhere. There will be a problem soon with that as the world starts running out of oil. Going back to an urban village style of living will enable one to walk to a bar. Until that happens, falsifying 3 does not appear to be a solution.
Falsifying number 1 takes much of gthe happiness out of life. This means that people can never get together for recreational or off-work purposes. This can damage the morale of people everywhere. If we stop all parties, we can stop much but not all drinking and driving. But would we want to do that?
Perhaps falsifying number 2 is the best strategy. The whole problem exists because people think it is good to go out and drink. Can one have fun at a party without alcoholic beverages? Why do they have to be so necessary? I don't mean prohibiting it because look at what that caused in the 1920s and 1930s. I am saying not to depend on alcohol for a good time. Go out and enjoy being with other people. It's as simple as that.
In support of this, I request that the media refrain from sending out contradictory messages. Don't do a news segment on a horrible drunken driving accident and then show an ad that glorifies Millered-up Beer or whatever. That is sending out mixed messages. As part of this, I am requesting that companies in the alcoholic beverage business stop all pushy ads, including all ads on radio, TV and popups on the Internet. To me, this, along with decreasing our dependence on oil, are the best ways of curing the drunk driver problem and its accompanying contradiction.
