Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, is a non-profit organization in the United States and other countries. In the 1980s, MADD had tremendous success in changing public attitudes and laws regarding driving under the influence. While MADD still regards itself as a victims' rights organization, critics contend that it has shifted its original goals from preventing drunk driving fatalities to preventing any drinking and driving. Even more controversially, MADD has moved to take positions on other alcohol-related issues with no clear link to drunk driving. Some, including the group's founder, call the current organization neo-prohibitionist. Common criticisms of the organization deem it as neo-prohibitionist, ageist, and in favor of the creation of a nanny state - all under the pretense of preventing deaths due to drunk driving.
Agenda
Generally the group favors:
- Making drunk driving laws more strict in a variety of areas, including an illegal blood alcohol content of .08 or lower and using sanctions for DUI offenders, including treatment for alcoholism and other alcohol abuse issues, ignition interlock devices, and license suspensions.
- Helping victims of drunk driving
- A ban on drinking before the age of 21 with no exceptions for religious, health or other reasons (even though there is not even remotely convincing evidence that these bans reduce drunk driving by those under this age).
A full list of MADD's positions is available online.
History
Candy Lightner was the organizer and founding president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In 1980, Ms. Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter, Cari, was killed by a drunken hit-and-run driver as she walked down a suburban street in California. "I promised myself on the day of Cari’s death that I would fight to make this needless homicide count for something positive in the years ahead," Candy Lightner later wrote. A 1983 television movie about Lightner resulted in publicity for the group, which grew rapidly. The group had its greatest success with the imposition of a 1984 federal law that required states to raise the minimum legal age for purchase and possession (but not the drinking age) to 21 or lose federal highway funding. After the United States Supreme Court upheld the law in the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole, every state complied. In 1990, MADD introduces its "20 by 2000" plan to reduce the proportion of traffic fatalities that are alcohol-related 20 percent by the year 2000. This came three years early in 1997.
In 1991, MADD released its first Rating the States report, grading the states in their progress again drunk driving. Rating the States has been released four times since then.
In 1999, MADD’s National Board of Directors unanimously voted to change the organization’s mission statement to include the prevention of underage drinking, whether or not the drinking was associated with driving.
Since the group's inception, thousands of anti-drunk driving laws have been passed. MADD also helped popularize the use of "designated drivers" although it originally opposed the practice because it permits non-drivers to consume alcohol.
More recently, MADD was heavily involved in lobbying to reduce the legal limit for blood alcohol from BAC .10 to BAC .08. In 2000, this standard was passed by Congress and by 2005, every state had an illegal .08 BAC limit. The corporation's franchisee in Canada (MADD Canada) has recently called for a maximum legal BAC of .05. MADD has also been successful in lobbying for "administrative license suspension" laws mandating the confiscation and immediate suspension by police of the driver's licenses of suspects arrested for drunk driving. These laws have been almost universally adopted by all states but have been criticized on grounds of lack of due process, presumption of guilt, and double jeopardy.
MADD has successfully advocated, and continues to advocate, for the enactment of laws for the stricter punishment of offenders of laws against driving under the influence, as well as laws against drinking and driving.
Declines in drunk driving
The death rate from alcohol related traffic accidents has dramatically declined since the 1970s, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). According to NHTSA, alcohol related deaths have declined from 26,173 in 1982 to 16,694 in 2004. While some of this decline may be attributable to improvements in car safety and emergency medicine, MADD's supporters claim the group's efforts have brought about this decline, because alcohol-related fatalities declined much more significantly than non-alcohol-related fatalities. Declining death rates in alcohol-related car accidents may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the past 25 years. The declining number of alcohol-related car accident deaths found by NHTSA is particulary dramatic because total U.S. population and the number of drivers has increased substantially during the past 23 years.
The statistics kept on traffic fatalities were originally based upon "alcohol-caused" deaths. Critics point out, however, that these statistics were later quietly changed to "alcohol-related." This meant that a sober driver who hit and killed an intoxicated pedestrian, for example, would be involved in an "alcohol-related" incident. Similarly, a sober driver who is struck by another sober driver carrying an intoxicated passenger was counted as another "alcohol-related" death. Further, if the officer believes the driver to be intoxicated but chemical tests show he is not, the death is nevertheless reported as "alcohol-related;" if the tests indicate the presence of any alcohol at all, say .02%, the fatality is counted as "alcohol-related".
In 1999, the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed the claimed fatality figures from NHTSA and issued a report stating that they "raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question ". The statistics, the GAO report said, "fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities."
Controversy
MADD has generated much controversy in recent years, especially over its forceful lobbying against underage drinking.
Paternalism
Some believe that MADD's policies amount to unwarranted paternalism, the view that the state can pass laws to prevent people from harming themselves; as a result, MADD is considered as a pre-eminent organization in favor of a so-called "nanny state" by some. In every state in the United States, anyone who has reached the age of 18 is legally an adult and can vote, join the military, contract real estate, and be punished as an adult under the law. Of course, preventing operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol isn't strictly paternalism, since drivers impaired by alcohol could kill others as well.
MADD and other advocates of the 21-year old drinking age claim that the harm of underage consumption of alcohol stems from the fact that the brain does not stop developing until the early 20s. Until that age, they claim, alcohol consumption retards brain development and harms the parts of the brain responsible for judgment and memory development. However, evidence of this is based on studies of rats and alcohol abusers. Critics of MADD see this as an example of junk science. See Alcohol and Teenagers' Brains.
Supervision paradox
In the United States, legal exemptions for alcohol consumption under the guidance of an older family member can be somewhat paradoxical; since age 18 is the start of adulthood, there is a three-year gap when an adult might be living away from home, but unable to purchase alcoholic beverages. In every state in the United States, individuals over the age of 18 are considered to have reached the age of majority.
To this point, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the minimum drinking age law has saved 22,798 lives since 1975 by reducing the number of fatalities involving underage drinking drivers. MADD frequently cites this statistic as "proof" that a high drinking age saves lives, however its critics have pointed out that similar fatalities among the same age group in Canada have dropped by a similar proportion despite the fact that Canada's drinking age remains at 18 or 19 (depending on the province).
Practical arguments
Some argue that it's not pragmatic to require such a high age limit. These arguments exist for all sorts of reasons. For instance, it's quite possible that perhaps even more lives could be saved if the age limit were raised even higher. Others point out that the age limit perhaps gets in the way of the social process young people need to go through in order to learn to drink responsibly. By the age of 21, parents exert far less influence over their children; by often not being legally permitted to purchase alcohol for their minor children, it can be argued that adults lose precious years to teach their children how to drink responsibly.
Those who take the pragmatist approach to opposing strict under-21 laws may also feel enforcing BAC limits and promoting public transportation are better ways to prevent drunk driving. Some even dispute that the laws have done any good at all. People who argue using these grounds will often point to other countries where alcohol laws are much more liberal, yet fatalities related to drinking are less frequent.
It can be argued that low BAC limits and high age limits on alcohol consumption is pragmatic. For one, the United States is a much more automobile-centric society than most, if not all, countries. Outside of a few metropolitan areas, such as Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., public transportation use is rare and often impractical. Because of settlement patterns in the United States, combined with an ingrained automobile culture, public transportation is unlikely to ever become as widespread as it is in Europe. Therefore, to some proponents of stricter consumption laws, it makes sense to limit consumption.
MADD's mission
Some critics claim that MADD has shifted in emphasis from preventing DUI deaths and injuries to preventing underage alcohol use, and that this is undermining the organization's original goal, because MADD's leadership has stated that it's more important to stop drinking than it is to stop drunk driving fatalities. For example, the president of MADD, Glynn Byrch, wrote in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post:
- Taking away a teenager's car keys and replacing them with a beer may prevent death and injury on the road, but it sends a dangerous message to teenagers that it's okay to break the law.[1]
In 2005, the president of Middlebury College, John M. McCardell, Jr. wrote in the New York Times that "the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law" that has made the college drinking problem far worse. [2]
Drivers Against MADD Methods (DAMM) is another organization, that is against the current MADD tactics. They claim MADD was a good cause gone bad.
Conflict of interest criticism
MADD promotes the use of "victim impact panels" (VIPs), where judges require DWI offenders to pay MADD a fee to hear victims or relatives of victims of drunk driving crashes relate their stories. Some states in the United States, such as Massachusetts, permit victims of all crimes, including drunk driving accidents, to give "victim impact statements" prior to sentencing so that judges and prosecutors can consider the impact on victims in deciding on an appropriate sentence to recommend or impose. The presentations are often emotional, detailed, and graphic, and focus on the tragic negative consequences of DWI and alcohol-related crashes. However, a New Mexico study suggested that the VIPs' confrontational approaches are ineffective in the treatment of alcohol problems, and that the use of VIPs actually increased DWI recidivism in that state.[3]. Some studies have shown that permitting victims to make statements and to give testimony is psychologically beneficial to them and aids in their recovery and in their satisfaction with the criminal justice system. [4]
Financial mismanagement allegations
In 1994, Money magazine reported that telemarketers raised over $38 million for MADD, keeping nearly half of it in fees. This relationship no longer exists. Overall, MADD reports that it spends 17% of its budget on fundraising, which is below average for an advocacy organization that is heavily dependent on many individual contributions. However, the American Institute of Philanthropy and others note that MADD categorizes much of its fundraising expenses as "educational expenses." The American Institute of Philanthropy has given MADD poor grades for its high bureaucratic and fundraising costs. On the other hand, in December 2001, Worth magazine listed MADD as one of its "100 best charities."
Allegations of avarice
Non-profit organizations typically permit their chapters to keep most of the money they raise. For example, Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) chapters get to keep 90% of all funds they raise. In contrast, MADD's corporate office claims immediate ownership of all money raised by all its chapters. Thus, after raising $129,000 locally and turning it all over as MADD demands, the Las Vegas chapter received a check from the national office for $1.29 as its share. MADD's "focus is on greed," said the chapter President, who reported "I've never seen such bloodsuckers!"
Criticisms of the motives of MADD's critics
In some instances, critics of MADD have received funding from restaurant chains, beer manufacturers and distributors, and other front groups from or connected to the liquor industry. For example, Corporate Lobbyist Rick Berman and various front groups under his control have attacked MADD as a "prohibitionist" organization. [5]. However, this does not invalidate their criticisms.
MADD sometimes imputes ulterior and sinister motives to its critics. For example, it has charged that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught.” Because some law enforcement organizations believe that roving patrols are more effective in apprehending impaired drivers and are a more efficient use of limited resources, opposition to such laws may be based on legitimate public policy concerns.
Candy Lightner's departure
Lightner left MADD in the 1980s, and has since gone on to criticize the group as "neo-prohibitionist." Lightner stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."
In popular culture
- Drunks Against Mad Mothers, or DAMM, is a farcical counter-movement to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is usually represented by t-shirts. The notoriety of the expression may have come from James Hetfield of Metallica, who was once pictured in such a t-shirt.
- In Robert Ashley's musical duet, The Man in the Green Pants, (Sam Ashley, Robert's son) taunts police by calling them "Motherf*ckers Against Drunk Driving."
See also
Source
- MADD Money. Investigative report., K5 News, Seattle, Washington.
External links
Other Viewpoints
