This Might Make You MADD

MADD’s campaign of anti-drunk driving laws is inherently flawed. Yep, I’m anti-MADD. Hell, just writing that ought to get this near-unread blog some hate mail. How can I be anti-MADD, you ask? Pretty simple: MADD is an organization that has degenerated from a well-intentioned grassroots organization of grief-stricken mothers with a laudable goal into a well-funded, well-organized attack dog bent on policing behavior they don’t approve of in all Americans. I’m not the only one who feels this way. Check out this document written by former executive director of the MADD Northern Virginia Chapter and the former executive director of the American Council on Alcoholism, Charles Pena.

Ok, let’s get specific:

Part 1: MADD’s push for drunk driving laws are unnecessary and redundant.

This country, its citizens and its lawmakers suffer under the delusion that if a problem exists, the solution can be found by drafting new laws. Laws should be simple and minimal in a free society. If someone is too drunk to drive, they are going to be driving to endanger. That’s already against the law. Arresting them for drunk driving is redundant. A responsible drinker who has a few drinks over the course of the evening and who can drive unimpaired should not be subject to arrest and humiliation. MADD’s goal to continue to drop the legal limit does nothing to address the problem of serious drunks and repeat offenders who, like all criminals, are undeterred by laws, but only attacks the social drinker who can safely operate their vehicle (which would constitute a great deal of the American population).

Part 2: MADD’s science is unsound.

BAC is a measure of alcohol in the bloodstream. A decision by the AMA declaring that anyone exceeding .15% BAC was impaired was made over 20 years ago. MADD decided that wasn’t enough and has pushed hard to have it pushed down first to .10% and then to .08%. Apparently MADD knows more about your body and how alcohol affects it than the AMA. Secondly, alcohol affects everyone differently. A measure of the BAC may indicate that an unimpaired person is technically impaired and vice versa. Blanket standards do not take into account variations in individuals. Don’t think that MADD will stop with .08%, their zero-tolerance attitude is steering them to pressure the Federal Government to make any alcohol in the blood grounds for arrest on drunk driving. That’s why MADD is known as neo-prohibitionists (and we all know how well prohibition worked the first time around). Even better, the studies that MADD flouts to prove that reducing the legal limit to .08% were written by MADD board members.

Part 3: MADD is focused on money and prohibition, not safety

MADD is a non-profit group, correct? Take a look at the executive’s salaries and explain to me why they’re making such a profit from being non-profit. Now take a look at this page (horribly designed, I know) and check out some of the numbers that MADD is raking in from their efforts. In bed with big, corporate sponsors like GM, MADD is less about making the streets safe (how many GM vehicles have been recalled for massive safety faults?) and more about making the money.

Even the founder of MADD, Candy Lightner, now no longer aligned with the organization because of their neo-prohibitionist goals, believes that MADD is out of control, calling them “powermad” in an article in the Washington Times back in 2000.

I’m sure we can all agree that people who are drunk shouldn’t be driving (or shooting, or boating, or anything where fine motor skills mean the difference between life and death, for the operator or bystanders). Not all of you may agree, but I also think that everyone has the right to get drunk when they want to, as we are supposedly living in a free society. Caveat: as with any action in a free society, a person must take responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof. More importantly, responsible people can have a few social drinks over the course of an evening and safely drive home without endangering themselves or anyone else. MADD, however, seeks to demonize these social drinkers and threaten them with the fear of drunk driving arrests and the monetary and social costs that arise thereupon. This neo-prohibitionist behavior does nothing to make the streets safer and only serves to instill fear and worry into the lives of many average Americans.

The problem drinker and driver is a rare beast, compared to the number of responsible drinkers in this country. Still, MADD would have us believe that any combination of drinking and driving will lead to mayhem and death on the roads. They are looking to force their own neo-prohibitionist views on us all via guilt and fear. It’s sad to see an organization with such noble roots fall so far. Here’s an excellent piece of the Back-Door Prohibition movement: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa501.pdf

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 25th, 2005 at 7:03pm and is filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.