Driven Mad?

Three serious car accidents within the space of a few days. Two people dead, one very critically injured, and at least one person escaping death or very serious injury only through God’s grace or extreme good fortune.  In all three cases the drivers were reportedly under the influence of alcohol, or to put it more technically correctly, had moderate to very high amounts of alcohol in their blood as measured by breathalyser.

No wonder one of the major talking-points over the past few days has been the regulation of drink-driving and enforcement of the prevailing legislation.

Malta was one of the last countries in Europe to introduce proper laws regulating drink driving. It was only in the mid-90s that the Government responded to the requests and promptings mainly from  addiction operatives and health officials and announced it was planning the enactment of legislation which would establish a permissible amount of alcohol in the blood, introduce the use of the breathalyser and lay down appropriate penalties for infractions.

Initially government’s  intentions were to establish a BAC (blood alcohol concentration) of 100mgs per decilitre of blood - the highest in Europe at the time. I very clearly remember the then Prime Minister, Eddie Fenech Adami, visiting Dar iż-Żerniq (which, at the time, housed sedqa’s Alcohol Services) a few months before the 1996 elections. We fiercely remonstrated with him about this. His response was that government had been advised that a couple of beers would push up the limit to close to that level - which is quite wrong.

The law was eventually passed - by Alfred Sant’s government in 1998. It established a permitted BAC of 80mgs of alcohol/deciltre of blood with a fine of  for those found guilty of exceeding that amount. The driving licence would be suspended, but, disappointingly, only if the blood level exceeded 100mg/deciltre. Most frustratingly of all for those of us who believed that only strong measures would have a substantial effect on the number of alcohol-related incidents and deaths, the law did not allow random testing of drivers, but limited it to situations where the police had “reasonable suspicion’’ that the person at the wheel was under the influence.

The level of alcohol allowed by the law was still the highest in Europe; only the UK and Ireland permitted similar levels. Worse still, generally speaking, official attitudes towards drink-driving were quite lackadaisical at the time. One high-ranking police officer reassured the nation on TV that the enactment of this law did not mean the police would be testing people who were driving home from weddings. In Parliament, similarly complacent attitudes were expressed during the debate about the legislation: it appears that the message which was being passed on to drivers was “Don’t worry if you have a drink or two before you drive. The law will only come hard on those who truly overdo it’’ .

Over the years, agencies and health officials campaigned for changes in the legislation. Possibly as a result, in 2009 the fine for a first drink-driving offence was upped to a more acceptable €1200 and refusing a breathalyser test became an offence equivalent to testing positive - and incurring the same penalties.

Since then the law has changed further: most recently, the allowable amount was lowered to 50mgs for most drivers and to 20mgs to “novice drivers’’ and drivers of commercial vehicles. No amount of alcohol is allowable in the case of drivers of vehicles carrying fee-paying passengers. The fine for a first drink-driving offence had in the meantime risen to €1800, while a second or subsequent offence would set back the offending driver €3000. The driving licence is to be suspended for 6 months and 12 months respectively. Nowadays points are deducted for each driving infraction.

In all cases involving drink-driving, the Magistrate MAY sentence the miscreant to probation order including a rehab programme or Community Service, but only if the BAC is considerably higher than the limits permitted by law.

The law as it currently stands has some serious flaws, primary among which is its failure to allow the police unfettered discretion to carry out breathalyser tests. This deficiency, pointed out by agencies and NGOs in 1998 when the original law was enacted has never been corrected. One possible reason for the failure to address this defect in the law was the mistaken belief, held by Government consultants, that European courts could strike any such legal provision down on the grounds that it violated human rights. Many EU countries including The Netherlands, Denmark and Cyprus (to mention but three) empower the police to stop drivers and test them at random.

If we truly wish to cut down on drink-driving deaths and serious injuries, we should adopt a stricter approach to the prevention of drink driving:

1. Lower the BAC to 20mgs for general driving purposes and to 0mgs for novice drivers, drivers of commercial vehicles and drivers of vehicles with fee-paying passengers. Yes, the plan is to pave the way for eventually totally prohibiting the presence of alcohol in the blood of those at the wheel of all sorts of vehicles. The only truly safe amount of alcohol in the blood in the context of driving is 0mgs. 

2. Introduce - and actually implement - unfettered, random stopping and testing through breathalyser.

3. Introduce mandatory testing through breathalyser when accidents (including minor collisions) occur.

4. Enforce legislation thoroughly and ruthlessly. One need not wait until the current legislation is amended. At present police may (and indeed do at times) stop drivers at random for certain purposes ( to check driving licences, for example) and test them if they show signs (smell, slurred speech, erratic driving) of being under the influence. Around New Year's Eve the police mount an impressively efficient operation which based on random stopping but suspicion-based testing as allowed by law, which has seen the number of deaths during Yuletide go down considerably compared to, say, the previous decade.

A similar exercise a few times a year, publicising the number of people apprehended and making sure that arraignments and sentences are splashed all over the media, would drive the fear of God (well the fear of legal consequences) in many drivers and considerably reduce the number of casualties.

5.  Do away with the automatic restoration of licences once the period of suspension is over. Licences will be given back only the if the offending driver has undergone an assessment by a recognised alcohol agency which rules out  a serious current drinking problem and can recommend treatment.

6. A third (or subsequent) infraction of the drink-driving rules should result in a mandatory (i.e.not left to the Magistrate’s discretion) prison sentence.

7. All these measures should apply also to sea-craft.

Draconian? Only if the much-vaunted respect for human life is in reality so many impressively lofty, but ultimately empty, platitudes.

29

It-telefonata kienet waħda minn dawk li bħalha konna nirċievu ta’ sikwit: kollega minn sedqa, jaħdem fil-kamp tad-droga, ċempilli biex jgħidli li kien jaf raġel li kellu problema tax-xorb u xtaq jagħmel xi ħaġa fuqha. Ċempiltlu u ftehemna li kellu jiġi Dar iż-Żerniq, il-Furjana xi jumejn wara filgħaxija.

Dik il-ħabta ma kellniex domanda qawwija wisq għas-servizzi tagħna. Kien ilna sena li ftaħna Dar iż-Żerniq u l-programm residenzjali ftit li xejn kien qed jiġbed nies. Kontinwament bit-tensjoni tal-mannara mdendla fuq rasna: jekk ma kinux se jiżdiedu r-residenti l-programm kienu se jagħlquhulna. Għall-programm kommunitarju, li ma kienx jeħtieġ li dak li jkun isir resident, kellna talba kontinwa, anke jekk mhux li tista’ ssejħilha sfiqa. Imma kważi ħadd ma ried jidħol resident u l-ftit li kienu  jidħlu kienu jagħmlu hemm jekk mhux mill-Milied sa San Stiefnu, mill-Milied sal-Istrina, jew l-aktar l-aktar sat-Trere. Kull klijent ġdid konna nivvalutawh sew bit-tama li nsibu li kien se jkun addattat (u mixtieq) għall-programm residenzjali.

A. , minn daqshekk, kien ta’diżappunt. Il-personalità f’postha, pulit u edukat, familja li tidher stabbli minkejja li x-xorb tiegħu kiddha mhux ħażin, ma kellux problema fuq ix-xogħol minħabba l-alkoħol u kien lest li jipprova kulma nissuġġerulu. Deher li l-programm residenzjali ma kienx jgħodd għalih. Iddeċidejna li għall-inqas nibdew bil-programm kommunitarju, imbagħad jekk ma jirnexxix nikkunsidraw ir-residenza.

Ma kienx hemm wisq dubju li kellu problema ta’ dipendenza serja: jixrob kuljum, sa flixkun u nofs whisky, minkejja t-tgergir ma jaqta’ xejn tal-mara u r-reazzjoni tat-tfal li, b’imġibthom kienu juru lil missierhom li xejn ma kienu kuntenti bix-xorb tiegħu. Filgħaxija, kif imur lura d-dar kemxejn imxengel u lsienu tqil, u jsib atmosfera li xejn ma tilqgħu, bis-solennità kollha kien iwiegħed lilu nnifsu li l-alkoħol daqhekk miss ma xuftejh. U l-wegħda dejjem żammha...sa  nofsinhar tal-għada filgħodu. Imbagħad il-kilba li tiġi mid-drawwa, daqskemm mill-ħtieġa taċ-ċelloli tal-ġisem li jassorbu dik is-sustanza li kienet saret taħjihom u tirvinahom fl-istess ħin, kienet tiġbdu lejn il-ħanut biex ‘’nieħu tnejn u nitlaq’’ – u jibqa’ mwaħħal mas-siġġu sakemm ilegleg flixkun whisky f’sagħtejn u nofs.

Għax ix-xorb hekk għal min hu alkoħoliku: bexxaqlu l-bieb pulzier u jidħol bil-ħalel waqt grigalata. Tih nofs difer u jiblagħlek ġismek kollu –  u ruħek u moħħok ukoll.

Fil-għaxija, dritt mix-xogħol, is-seba’ visti: ħwienet, il-Każin tan-Nazzjonalisti, il-Każin tal-Labour (ix-xorb ma jagħrafx kuluri), il-Każin tal-Banda. Imbagħad, xħin l-istonku ma jkunx baqagħlu wisa’ għall-grokk ieħor, jerħilha lejn id-dar...

Fil-familja li trabba fiha x-xorb kien ta’ ġewwa: missieru u erbgħa minn ħutu s-subien kienu jixorbu bil-kbir; tnejn minnhom mietu minħabba l-effetti tal-alkoħol. Minn ċkunitu trabba bl-inbid. Meta ġie għandna għall-għajnuna kellu 56 sena - u kien ilu jixrob bil-goff aktar minn 30.

Kien t-tfal li kkonvinċewh ikellem lill-ħabib tagħhom li kien jaħdem sedqa. Aċċetta għax, fil-fond ta’ qalbu, ma setax jiżgiċċa l-verità li - la kien jibda u ma jieqaf b’xejn u diffiċli ħafna biex ma jibdiex avolja x-xorb kien qed jaqlagħlu l-inkwiet fil-familja  – kellu problema. U problema serja.

Beda jattendi l-laqgħat tagħna darbtejn, ġieli tlieta, fil-ġimgħa. Il-mara tiegħu li kienet ilha għaxriet tas-snin tbati minħabba x-xorb tiegħu -  u li sa membri tal-familja tiegħu stess kienu jħeġġuha biex titilqu – appoġġatu bis-sħiħ u kienet tmur miegħu għal-laqgħat kollha. Hi stess irrealizzat li dawn kien qed jgħinu liha wkoll biex tifhem li żewġha kien marid u li l-uniku “fejqan”kien li jitgħallem jgħix mingħajr xorb.

Għall-bidu A. kellu l-ħsieb li wara ftit jerġa jibda jixrob “bħan-nies”. It-terapisti u sħabu l-alkoħoliċi tal-grupp malajr fehmuh li min inħakem mill-alkoħoliżmu ma jista’ jixrob xejn.  Beda jara b’għajnejh dawk li webbsu rashom u ppruvaw jikkontrollaw daħlu f‘baħar ta’ inkwiet, u ġieli qabdu t-triq li wasslithom fil-qabar. U rrealizza li għalih mogħdija waħda kien hemm: dik li għal lum ma jixrobx. U għada jagħmel l-istess...

Minn dak il-jum li A. rifes l-għatba ta’ Dar iż-Żerniq għall-ewwel darba għaddew 26 sena. Ma missx qatra ma xufftejh. Inkwiet kellu – u serju: mard gravi ta’ membri tal-familja; attakk tal-qalb li kważi bagħtu għand il-Mulej u traġedja kerha li kexkxet lil Malta ħasdet il-ħajja ta’ membru ieħor tal-familja.Darba, waqt munemt ta’ tensjoni u dwejjaq minħabba waħda minn dawn is-sitwazzjonijiet, qabad it-triq lejn il-ħanut li bil-ħsieb li jmur jixrob, imma eżatt qabel wasal, irrealizza li bix-xorb ma kien se jsolvvi xejn – u dar lura. Dawk is-sigħat li qatta’ fil-grupp, jgħid tiegħu,  jisma’ u  jixtarr, servew biex daħħal f’moħħu l-idea li bix-xorb tkabbar il-problemi mhux issewwihom. U fil-mument tal-prova, l-għarfien jaf jisboq it-tentazzjoni.

Sal-biraħtlula stess attenda l-laqgħa tagħna l-Furjana. Meta tistaqsih għaliex, wara disgħa u għoxrin sena, għadu sal-lum jattendi, iwieġbek li jaf li jekk ma jfakkarx lilu u jsaħħaħx lilu nnifsu kapaċi jgħaxxaqha. Ra ħafna, li anke wara snin weqfin u b’ħajjithom għaddejja sew, bdew jaħsbu li kapaċi jfendu mingħar l-appoġġ u żgarraw. Fuq kollox, li tinvesti siegħa u nofs darba jew darbtejn fil-ġimgħa biex iżżomm ħajtek fis-sod, huwa sagrifiċċju żgħir.

Bil-waqfien mix-xorb A. kiseb ħafna – u ma jridx jarmih. Saħħtu, il-familja magħquda li tħobbu u tridu fejn qabel kienet tiskartah, ħbieb li jirrispettawh, l-opportunità li jgħin lil ħaddieħor bil-kelma u bl-eżempju – qed jgħix ħajja li sitta u għoxrin sena ilu lanqas biss kien jazzarda joħlom li għad ikollu. Martu, kwieta, umli, imma soda daqs l-azzar, għandha mertu kbir fil-kisbiet tiegħu. Flimkien għamlu vjaġġ minn post ta’  għawġ u tensjoni għal fejn qegħdin illum: kuntentissimi b’ħajjithom u  bl-għaqda ta’ bejniethom.

Mhux veru li min jitwieled tond ma jmutx kwadru. Bid-deċiżjoni u bl-appoġġ isiru l-bidliet profondi. Seħibna A. huwa xhieda qawwija ta’ dan.

 

The Noble Experiment

Try and envisage this scenario: Parliament enacts legislation prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale and barter of all alcoholic drinks in Malta and Gozo with almost immediate effect. What would you think would happen? Civil strife instigated by the Paceville business community, perhaps? A sudden dramatic increase in demand for professional alcohol treatment services? A sizeable upsurge in the unemployment figures? Certainly life would be very different compared to what it is like today. Alcohol is so much part of us that to try and erase it from daily living in any Western country would be unthinkable, no?

Well not quite unthinkable.  That is precisely what happened in the United States of America just over a century ago. In January 1920 the American Constitution was amended in such a way as to render all transactions involving alcohol together with its manufacture illegal.

The reasons for Prohibition are easy to pinpoint: for decades, an anti-alcohol movement, known as the Temperance Movement had been growing from strength to strength as it appeared evident that alcohol consumption was associated with, nay, directly responsible for, much anti-social behaviour: drunkenness, neglect of families, murder, violence, absenteeism from work....you name it. This sort of behaviour flourished, according to the Temperance Movement - and few could have realistically contradicted it -  precisely because it was fuelled by the demon drink in those dens of iniquity known as saloons, with which many American towns were teeming.

Common sense and a growing body of what appeared to be scientific evidence pointed to the fact that the eradication of drinking would be accompanied by a dramatic decrease in social and human problems.

For thirteen long years, Prohibition ruled...at least on the legal level. In reality, probably because it was imposed on a nation which was never convinced of its validity, and, in any case, was not prepared to accept it, Prohibition did not meet its objectives. While alcohol consumption did fall dramatically, especially in the initial period, the problematic behaviour Prohibition was supposed to eradicate actually increased. Criminals organised themselves into efficient providers of the alcohol people were desperately seeking and prepared to pay good money for. The American Mafia was born at this time, and thrived on the strong demand for illegal alcohol Prohibition created. Because spirits are less bulky than beer, it was easier to smuggle and manufacture whisky and other spirits illegally, and former beer drinkers switched to sprits, thus probably consuming more alcohol. 

The whole atmosphere of illegality surrounding drinking bred violence (for example, among rival gangs vying for control of the industry), which resulted in a higher rate of murders than in the pre-Prohibition area. There was no official control of standards, and  the quality of alcohol drunk was in many cases abysmal, with people dying as a result.

By the early thirties, it was evident that the ‘noble experiment’ had failed miserably. Alcohol was simply too deeply-rooted in the national psyche for any attempt to force abstinence upon people to succeed. In all probability, the sceptical political class itself was not prepared to back the initiative the whole way by providing the necessary resources to enforce Prohibition, and to educate the public in the ways of abstinence. In December 1933, America heaved a collective sigh of relief and reached for a legal celebratory glass of champagne as the by then infamous legislation which had brought legal Prohibition into being was repealed.