Drug drive campaign ignores shock tactics

This week the UK Government began a new advertising campaign in an attempt to reduce the amount of people who drive while under the influence of drugs. The advertising campaign launched by the transport secretary Andrew Adonis and costing £2.3 million will feature on television, radio and at music festivals. It is the aim of the government to make drug driving as socially unaccepted as drink driving.

Hard-hitting campaigns about the consequences of drink driving have led to nearly a 75 percent reduction in people killed in drink drive related accidents. The government is keen to address the problem of people who would not get behind the wheel while drunk, but would under the influence of drugs.

Andrew Adonis stated "we are determined to get the message through to this reckless minority that their behaviour is putting lives in danger." However the adverts do not seem to outline the tragic consequences that might occur if one drives under the influence of drugs. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents welcomes this advertising campaign as a step in ending the myth that it is more difficult to get caught for drug driving than drink driving. However there have only been 3000 drug-driving prosecutions this year compared to 100,000 drink driving offences and the lack of a suitable screening device means that a suspect who has failed the rudimentary Fitness Impairment Test (FIT) must be assessed by a doctor back at the police station. This can lead to officers being taken of the streets for an unnecessary period of time.

But the current advert seems to leave out the dangerous aspect highlighted by Mr Adonis, preferring to use the familiar ‘we will catch you’ theme to deter would-be drug drivers. Of course a crucial part of the anti-drug drive campaign plan is to get it across message to people that drive under the influence of drugs that they are not immune from prosecution. However surely the spearhead of any campaign like this should be the emotional trauma caused if one should unwittingly kill or seriously injure through drug driving, backed up with the possibility of a long jail term.

The punishment for driving or attempting to drive when unfit to drive through drink or drugs is a maximum of six months in jail while the maximum punishment for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs is fourteen years. Perhaps petty criminals who are undeterred by six month sentences would think again about committing a crime if there was the possibility of spending 14 years in jail.

Motley Crew singer Vince Neil famously was convicted for vehicular manslaughter after crashing his car under the influence of alcohol and killing his friend and Hanoi Rocks drummer Razzle. Vince is still haunted by the crash and confesses that his prison sentence was too lenient and that he definitely deserved a longer sentence.

It would not be too inconceivable to use both concepts to give the advertising campaign its desired outcome. If you do not show the unforgettable horror of vehicular manslaughter the advert becomes nothing more than an advert warning against TV license evasion or benefit fraud. Both the latter offences seem to evoke a “why pay it if you can get away with it” attitude from members of the British public.

Countries such as Australia have used the same ‘shock tactics’ in their advertising campaigns against drug driving as the British government has used against drink driving for the last decades. These advertising campaigns have had to be constantly refined throughout the years in order for the message not to become boring and outdated. The latest adverts have specifically targeted men and the risk to their livelihood and reputation. Such advertising has led to the stigmatisation of drink- driving and the present day figures for drink driving related deaths are a quarter of what they were in 1980.

 This is in contrast to TV license evasion and benefit fraud that according to the latest statistics are on the increase. The fact of the matter is that small- term prison sentences do not act as a deterrent and that while tax evasion or benefit fraud cannot directly cause death or serious injury drug driving can. The government seems to be missing the point that drug driving is extremely dangerous, not only to the occupant but any number of people he/she may come in contact with.

 Australian drug-drive advert 1

Australian drug-drive advert 2

UK drink-driving advert