Could it be that there is a technology cheaper than brain transplants for offsetting the failing faculties of drink drivers?
The new legislation is an amendment to the Trade Measurement Act 2006, which will require beverage glasses to have standard drink sizes marked on them. According to a spokesperson for the Trade Measurement Section of the Department of Commerce, the purpose is not to make patrons aware of how much alcohol they are consuming, but to ensure they get the full measure of their chosen beverage.
An article in the Bunbury Herald on Tuesday May 26 quotes Sgt Gerard Murphy of South West Traffic Police as saying that “markings on glasses would offer people a helpful guideline.”
“It makes the drinker aware of what they’re doing,” Sgt Murphy is reported as saying. If indeed this unexpected benefit results, it would make the glass smarter than the average patron.
If someone needs marks on a glass to tell them what they are doing, they probably don’t have the faculty to interpret what the marks mean. If being on licenced premises and paying good money to a publican to have something served to them that costs a lot more than water is not a clue, then it is doubtful the standard drink marks will help patrons figure it out before they come to the attention of the bouncer.
The standard drink mark only represents a standard drink for a particular beverage with a known alcohol content. If marked glasses are used for any other type of drink, the measure provides no reliable indication of alcohol consumption to the consumer. He only knows he got the volume of beverage he paid for, not what it might contain. If it were otherwise, the marked glasses would also protect against spiked drinks, which of course is absurd.
But it is understandable that Police might live in hope that some prosthetic will be found that will compensate for the loss of reasoning power that alcohol induces in otherwise intelligent people, with devastating results. There is no better example than the Officer in Charge of Traffic in Darwin some years ago, who was charged with driving under the influence on his way home from a Police function. He had sold his intelligence to the Police Union wet canteen earlier in the night. The unintended result was high risk to other road users, and embarrassment for himself and for the force.
Adding to Police frustration over the misuse of alcohol in general is the cost of cleaning up the aftermath, estimated to be in excess of $192 million a year in Police resources. Maybe its time to consider a user pays approach to the cost of alcohol to the community, which would recoup the predictable costs by raising taxes on alcohol.
Although Kate Murnane refers to the new legislation in her article as if it is currently active, it does not become law until June 1, 2009.