DIFFICULTIES IN DEFINING THE SOCIAL MEANINGS LINKED WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF DRINKING BEHAVIOR ARE NOTED. FINDINGS OF STUDIES INVOLVING AUSTRALIAN DRIVERS SUBJECTED TO BREATHALYZER TESTS ARE REVIEWED, AS ARE THE FINDINGS OF COMMUNITY AND POSTMORTEM STUDIES IN AUSTRALIA AND ELSEWHERE. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT SCREENING DEVICES SUCH AS THE BREATHALYZER CAN BY EFFECTIVE ONLY IF RESULTS ARE RELATED TO THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE BEHAVIOR AT ISSUE. THE DETERRENT EFFECTS OF BREATHALYZER LEGISLATION, PUNITIVE MEASURES, AND ADVERTISING AND EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGNS IN AUSTRALIA ARE ASSESSED AND FOUND WANTING. DIVERSIONARY ALTERNATIVES TESTED IN AUSTRALIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES ARE REVIEWED, AND FURTHER EXPERIMENTATION WITH DIVERSION IS URGED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT, WHILE A TYPOLOGY DRINKING BEHAVIOR IS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT OF EACH DRIVER'S PROBLEMS, THE DRINKING DRIVER SHOULD BE ABLE TO SELECT AMONG ALTERNATIVES THE APPROACH THAT IS MOST SUITABLE FOR HIS SOCIAL SITUATION. HOWEVER, THE COURTS SHOULD RETAIN THE OPTION OF APPLYING PUNITIVE MEASURES WHEN THERAPY FAILS OR WHEN DRIVERS PREFER PUNISHMENT TO THERAPY. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE FLEXIBLE ALTERNATIVES ENCOMPASSED IN A DIVERSIONARY APPROACH MAY ALLOW THE BLENDING OF THERAPEUTIC AND PUNITIVE MEASURES. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED. (LKM)