Calgary Herald Column: Drinking is Not a Crime

This week's Herald column from yours truly looks at the trend of attacking the consumption of alcohol as a means to attack alcohol-related crime:

 

...As we amass a long list of "problems,"we need to be careful about which warrant government intervention and which are none of our damn business.

 

If someone chooses to get drunk in his own home, its none of our business. Even if that someone gets drunk at a pub, it's not necessarily our business. Granted, a precondition for drunk driving is the impairment itself, but the crime is in the act, not the precondition.

 

Which brings us to a controversial case in Ontario's cottage country. Sixteen people have been charged in connection with a fatal crash last summer.

 

The three young victims had all been drinking at a posh golf club. Of the sixteen accused, three were working in the club at the time, while the other 13 belong to the board of directors of the firm that owns the club.

 

All are charged with permitting drunkenness and supplying alcohol to intoxicated individuals--charges which seem open to interpretation, to say the least.

 

I would venture that if these young men had simply hopped in a cab, nobody would be facing any charges at all. Drunkenness contributed to the tragedy, but drunkenness did not make it unavoidable.

 

But what is "drunkenness"? Strictly applied, most bars and lounges would be guilty of these offences. Is it now a crime to be drunk at a bar? Drink, but don't get drunk?

 

There is a major distinction to be made between the louse who stumbles home, and the louse who gets behind the wheel.

 

We should be and remain vigilant about drunk drivers, but has our vigilance brought us to the point of targeting those who are perhaps not a threat?

 

A constitutional challenge of the government's elimination of the so-called "two-beer defence" might help answer that question.

 

Breathalyzers are not infallible, and eliminating the "two-beer defence" may have taken away the opportunity for someone who was legitimately below the legal limit to present evidence to that end.

 

The groups that cheered the elimination of the "two-beer defence" are the same groups pushing for a lowering of the blood alcohol limit to .05. We may well find ourselves regularly punishing those who really did have just a couple of glasses of wine over dinner.

 

Just don't drink, they'll say. Alcohol too expensive? Just don't drink. Liquor store too far? Just don't drink. Should you ignore this unsolicited advice, they'll still be telling the bar how much to serve you and when to send you home.

 

Promoting responsible drinking is one thing, but mandating it is something else entirely. Under the guise of fighting crime, we're allowing a modern day manifestation of the temperance movement--a movement not exactly famous for vanquishing crime.

 

The neo-prohibitionists may conflate drinkers and criminals, but clearly we can separate the two and focus on the latter.