Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #117082

Linda C. Degutis, DrPH¹, Norman A. Giesbrecht, PhD², Gina Stoduto, MA³, and Helen Sayward, MA¹. (1) Section of Emergency Medicine, Yale University, 464 Congress Ave, Suite 260, New Haven, CT 06519, 203.785.3917, linda.degutis@yale.edu, (2) Public Health & Regulatory Policy Section, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, 33 Russell Street, Toronto, ON M5S 2S1, Canada, (3) Social, Prevention & Health Policy Research Department, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, 33 Russell Street, Toronto, ON M5S 2S1, Canada

Background: Many societal and cultural factors affect the development of policy related to driving while intoxicated (DWI). Purpose: To examine the interplay of societal, political, and policy dimensions on DWI laws; the impact of federal incentives; and to describe ways in which data and anecdotes were used. Methods: We: 1) reviewed DWI legislation in selected states and provinces over the past 10 years; 2) abstracted information related to: existing alcohol policies; legislative history for DWI legislation; 3)conducted key informant interviews; and 4) reviewed federal legislation and initiatives. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded using NVivo software, allowing for identification of common themes. Other data abstracted were coded in Microsoft Access and analyzed using SPSS. Results: In the U.S., federal disincentive have resulted in the passage of a .08 BAC limit in all states. The federal disincentive did not lead to broad passage of open container laws, or repeat offender sanctions. U.S. state policymakers expressed resentment that federal legislators were interfering with states' rights by creating disincentives. Canadian provinces are moving toward BAC limits that are lower than required by federal law. No U.S. state passed a BAC limit of < .08. Advocates on both sides of the issue used data to support their arguments for or against the laws. Conclusion: There are major differences between U.S. and Canadian DWI laws resulting from federal vs. local (state or province) control over the laws. These differences are apparent in support for new policy and provisions of specific types of laws.

Learning Objectives:

• 1. describe issues related to federal disincentives related to the passage of DWI legislation
• 2. discuss ways in which data are used to advocate for DWI policy
• 3. describe at least 2 methods of evaluating policy development and implementation

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.