Table 5.

Arguments used by alcohol industry actors to influence road safety policies and programmes

Arguments	Detail
Personal responsibility	Alcohol misuse is an issue of ‘personal responsibility’ around which each consumer must exercise judgement (ID 3, 5, 6, 8, 19) (Anderson, 2004; Room, 2004; Wolburg, 2005; Misell, 2013; Esser et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2006; Robaina et al., 2018)
Moderate majority	The majority of drinkers are moderate and responsible. Harms are caused by an aberrant minority. This ‘moderate majority’ should not be swept up in policies and interventions which are poorly targeted (ID 5, 20) (Misell, 2013)
Legitimate stakeholder	The alcohol industry is a ‘legitimate stakeholder’ in developing alcohol policy (ID 5, 20) (Perl and Brotzman, 2018; Robaina et al., 2018)
(False) choice	There is a ‘(false) choice’ between only two, mutually exclusive options: neo-prohibition and industry self-regulation (Toomey, 2005)
Issue decoupling	‘Issue decoupling’: alcohol misuse is a risk factor for drink driving-related injuries and deaths, but alcohol use is otherwise not problematic (Anderson, 2004; Lindsay et al., 2008; Reiling and Nusbaumer, 2007)
Highlighting other issues	‘Highlighting other issues’: major issues in road safety include drowsy or drug driving, which can be as dangerous as drunk driving (ID 20) (Ogazi and Edison, 2012; AB InBev, 2016; Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, 2018)