QandO

August 11, 2004

Cultural change
Posted by McQ

The death rate on U.S. roads is the lowest since the government began tracking it in 1966, federal auto safety officials said Tuesday.

Tougher drunken-driving laws, stricter seat-belt enforcement and safer cars combined to reduce the number of people killed in car crashes to 1.48 for every 100 million miles traveled in 2003, the U.S. Department of Transportation said. The highway death rate was more than triple that figure during the 1960s.

Take Prohibition, for instance. The best of governmental intentions led to one of the worst episodes of law flaunting our country's ever seen. Same with the drug war.

But in this case, the result has been opposite.

I think this is great, but I disagree with the reasons mentioned as to why these things have happened. I don't think they happened because of "tougher laws" and "better enforcement" although I'm sure they've had some effect.

I think its because Americans at the grass-roots level took a look at the toll in carnage and said "drinking and driving is stupid and dangerous and oh, by the way, so is not wearing a seat belt".

I don't know about you but I don't even give wearing a seat belt a second thought anymore. I'd feel naked and exposed without one. I know the danger and I know this is a smart and effortless way to prevent it. I wore seatbelts before there was ever a single law on the books to mandate it.

Which is why I'm against seatbelt laws. Well its true. In the case of seatbelts, its none of the government's business (although I have to admit I'm sympathetic toward child seatbelt laws ... they can't fend for themselves and there are some real dumbass parents out there). I wear a seatbelt not because the government says I should, but because its dumb not too.

Same with drinking and driving. Its dangerous. Its stupid. In the case of drinking and driving I have no problem with laws against it because while not wearing a seatbelt only effects me, drinking and then having an accident can effect, oh screw 'effect', can kill others. Of course the laws don't stop it, they merely define the offense and the punishment.

But it brings me to the same point. I don't eschew drinking and driving because there are "strict laws" against it. Instead I'm aware of it and don't do it because it is socially unacceptable (not to mention dangerous) anymore to do so.

The whole society has changed the way it views such things. It is no longer cool to drink heavily and hop in your car and drive. Is that because of "stricter law enforcement". Well partially. But mostly its because we, as a society, at that grass-roots level, have assessed the problem and found it to be one we need to fix. We've changed our attitude toward drinking and driving.

That's a good thing in this case. And that's the thing about real cultural change ... without the grass-roots buying the premise it doesn't have a chance, regardless of attempts at tougher laws and better enforcement.

Think of society as a smoker. You can rail against that smoker all day long, threaten to punish the smoker, even punish them (if you can get away with it), but if that smoker see's nothing wrong with smoking, he or she is going to have a cigarette at some point whether you like it or not.

Its only when the smoker decides to quit that it happens. When that individual decision is made, then the change is going to happen.

Same with cultural change. In the case of seatbelts and drunken driving, the cultural change is definitely for the good. But the change came because millions of individuals made a decision that the old way of viewing these things was wrong.

Now, apply that to the drug war and any other top-down governmental program aimed at imposing change on the culture of the US. Until the grass-roots says, "yup, we need to change", then it isn't going to happen.

So if you were trying to change the culture concerning drugs and their usage, where would you spend the bulk of your money? Trying to convince the grass-roots to make the decision that being drug free is good or with "tougher laws" and "stricter enforcement"?

TrackBack