Drunk driving is not something to be condoned or defended as it is poses a serious threat to the well being of all persons involved.
That being said, there are numerous flaws with the contemporary crackdown on drunk driving. Contemporary methods intended to reduce impaired driving, (MADD advertisements, RIDE checks etc.) are little more than tools of propaganda and exploitation intended to garner public support for this "worthiest of all causes". The problem is, these tools are shrouded as methods of prevention, when in reality they are merely tools of exploitation. They fail to adequately solve a problem that has deeper origins than people are led to believe, and instead prolong it further. While the general public faults the perpetrator and praises the supreme authority, the root causes of this problem are left unsolved, and those truly at fault remain unscathed.
The rise of automobile culture and suburban growth has led to urban centres encompassing massive areas of land. Especially in the GTA, can it not be argued that automobile culture and suburbia have taken precedent within our governmental structures? Have alternative transportation needs not been ignored and severely hampered by partisan politics and political incompetence? Compare suburban GTA growth to the growth of the GTA's transportation network over the past 2-3 decades. Which is more inclined to support the use of the automobile? Is the automotive industry also not one of our provinces most important economic sectors? I think this link is far more than just coincidental.
Instead of adequately identifying the many root causes of impaired driving, the higher ups are simply exploiting its presence. Drunk Driving groups such as MADD will push for harsher sentences for repeat offenders, but governments of all levels realize that is is far costlier to throw somebody in jail for drinking and driving instead of laying down a fat monetary penalty. Also, is it not a Canadian-type sentiment to say that increased incarceration fails to reduce criminality? Our inferiority-complex with the US continually brings up that point. Additionally, it costs an offender $150 to reinstate a suspended license, on top of any other fine they may have incurred. What benefits the governments more? Evidently, exploiting the problem financially is a far more viable option than implementing more transportation options and reducing pro-automobile sentiments among citizens.
Sure, cracking down on drunk driving with things like RIDE checks is an inherently good thing, but the current system will not adequately curb impaired driving. It will only prolong its existence until more drastic changes are made.