I don't dispute that alcohol causes acute and chronic problems. But "involved" is just too vague.
They certainly still have the burden of demonstrating that somehow, but exclusively focusing on the particular near-synonym they used in the title seems uncharitable if you have read the first line of the article.
But that's a meaningless distinction if you're concerned about the impact of DUI to the public. So "alcohol involved" is more accurate and gets to the meat of what we actually care about.
By analogy to the gun debate which you're alluding to, saying "gun involved" deaths would neatly circumvent the "but guns don't shoot themselves" quagmire. However in the case of the gun debate, the "cause" language is used anyway despite asking for that quagmire, because it's more emotive.
I don't say this to detract from their message, and it's not some major deception, but I think it's noteworthy that this kind of sales and marketing treatment is given to an idea that's sufficiently well-accepted and consistent with observed reality to where it shouldn't really need the help.
Personally, when I sense someone is trying to bolster their argument by cherry picking or other deceptive practice, I immediately question their motives and their message. Maybe the overall effect is that still more people get the message when it's "spiced up"? Regardless, it's unnerving to me that the tactics employed in marketing seem to be applied by default to so much public communication. I wonder how accurate my perception of this as a growing trend is, and how it might relate to the general erosion of trust networks in modern society.