On Friday, May 2, 2008, USA Today printed a full page drunk driving advertisement with Lindsay Lohan’s infamous DUI arrest mug shot displayed right smack in the middle.
The ad reads:
“Ignition interlocks - A good idea for”
“But a bad idea for us.”
This statement appeared over a series of pictures: a happy bride and groom toasting each other, a group of young adults happily hoisting their beers and martinis, and three friends clinking beer glasses.
The ad, which is paid for by the American Alcohol Beverage Institute (hmm… strangely, this little piece of info is not mentioned in the ad), opposes the mandatory use of ignition interlocks, also known as in-car breathalyzers, which would require drivers to breathe into a tube to test their blood-alcohol level before they are able to start the ignition. However, if the driver is above the legal limit, the ignition is cut off. Activists in favor of these devices want to put one in every car in America. Of course, ABI wants to make sure that doesn’t happen… not because they are afraid it’ll deter people from moderate and “responsible” drinking, but because they care about America, damnit!
Riiight.
The ad makes a weak case, stating that the devices “are a great tool for getting hard-core drunk drivers off our roads.” However, why should the rest of America have to suffer? Go for the repeat offenders, like Lindsay! Interlocks in all cars would mean “the end of moderate and responsible drinking prior to driving… let’s stop drunk driving without eliminating our traditions.”
What tradition might that be? Giving people the freedom to drink and drive, and opening doors to the opportunity to kill others?? Day after day, we see horrific accidents and innocent deaths caused by irresponsible drinking. Who hasn’t seen the drunk guy claim that he’s okay to drive when he is clearly intoxicated? Drinking and driving effects everyone, like secondhand smoke. These devices won’t mean the end to responsible drinking; in fact, it would make sure of it. Whether it means securing a DD, opting to take a cab or just monitoring how much you are drinking throughout the night.
This act is looking at prevention. Not allowing the opportunity to endanger lives… those of the drinkers and the innocent.
Longwell added that the campaign will likely continue using images of other famous celebrities convicted of DUIs. Of course, it creates a stir, and makes writers and bloggers, like myself, bring even more attention to it. (Yes, I just admitted to being a tool.)
Here’s a just a small sampling…
“We looked at many different celebrities who had repeat offenses or were convicted of DUI with high blood-alcohol levels,” American Beverage Institute managing director Sarah Longwell told The Associated Press. “The reason that we used Lindsay Lohan is because she’s had multiple DUIs that have been high profile.”
You might be thinking, “Is the use of these photos even legal?” Apparently so, according to ABI.
“People magazine, Smoking Gun and a lot of people have republished this mug shot,” said Longwell. “It was publicly accessible. We’re not using it for any kind of commercial gain. So we’re well within our rights to use it.”
Even so, the ad set Lohan’s lawyer Blair Berk off.
“USA Today is idiotic to run such an irresponsible advertisement suggesting that drinking and driving is some kind of American ‘tradition’ we should protect,” said Berk. “Not identifying that this ad was paid for by the liquor and restaurant industries is profoundly reckless.”
USA Today defended itself with the statement, “Advocacy advertising is a big part of what we do. Our pages function as forum for competing views.”
That might be a suitable argument, if you made known exactly who’s views were competing.