Mothers Against Drunk Driving

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

File:MADDlogo.gif

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, is a single-issue non-profit victims' rights organization in the United States and other countries. In the 1980s, MADD had success in changing public attitudes and laws regarding driving under the influence (DUI).

Generally the group favors:

• Strict policy in a variety of areas, including an illegal blood alcohol content of .08 or lower and using stronger sanctions for DUI offenders, including mandatory jail sentences, treatment for alcoholism and other alcohol abuse issues, ignition interlock devices, and license suspensions
• Helping victims of drunk driving
• A ban on drinking before 21 years of age with no exception for religious, medical or other reasons.
• Increases in taxes levied on alcoholic beverages
• Further limiting the operating hours of businesses licensed to sell alcohol
• Mandating alcohol breath testing ignition interlock devices on all new motor vehicles

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.

In the early 1980s, the group managed to attract attention from the United States Congress. At a time when alcohol consumption laws varied greatly by state, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg was a notable early supporter. Lautenberg took exception to the fact that youth in New Jersey could easily travel into New York to purchase alcoholic beverages, thereby circumventing New Jersey's law restricting consumption to those 21-years-old and over.^[1] 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 capitulated.

In 1988, a drunk driver traveling the wrong way on Interstate 71 in Kentucky caused a head-on collision with a school bus. 27 people died and dozens more were injured in the ensuing fire. The Carrollton bus disaster in 1988 was one of the worst in U.S. history. In the aftermath, several parents of the victims became actively involved in MADD, and one became its national president.

In 1990, MADD introduced its "20 by 2000" plan to reduce the proportion of traffic fatalities that are alcohol-related 20 percent by the year 2000. This goal was accomplished three years early, in 1997.^{[citation needed]} That same year, MADD Canada was founded.^[2]

In 1991, MADD released its first "Rating the States" report, grading the states in their progress against 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.^[3]

In a November 2006 press release, MADD launched its Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving: this is a four-point plan to completely eliminate drunk driving in the United States using a combination of current technology (such as alcohol ignition interlock devices), new technology in smart cars, law enforcement, and grass roots activism.^[4]

Activities and impact

Drunk driving laws

Since the group's inception, thousands of anti-drunk driving laws have been passed.^{[citation needed]} MADD also helped popularize the use of designated drivers, although at first it opposed the practice because it might enable non-drivers to consume more.^{[citation needed]}

More recently, MADD was heavily involved in lobbying to reduce the legal limit for blood alcohol from BAC .10 to BAC .08.^{[citation needed]} In 2000, this standard was passed by Congress and by 2005, every state had an illegal .08 BAC limit.^{[citation needed]} MADD Canada has recently called for a maximum legal BAC of .05.^[5] Although many MADD leaders have supported a lower limit,^[6] MADD U.S. has not yet officially called called for a legal limit of .05.

MADD has successfully advocated, and continues to advocate, for the enactment of laws for even more strict and severe punishment of offenders of laws against driving under the influence, as well as laws against drinking and driving.^{[citation needed]}

Declines in drunk driving deaths

The death rate from alcohol-related traffic accidents has declined since the 1980s. According to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)^[7], alcohol related deaths per year have declined from 26,173 in 1982 to 16,885 in 2005. MADD has argued that the group's efforts have brought about this decrease, because alcohol-related fatalities declined more than did non-alcohol-related fatalities.^{[citation needed]}

However, NHTSA's definition of "alcohol-related" deaths includes all deaths on U.S. highways involving drunk drivers, drunk victims, or both. In 2001, for example, the NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System estimated an annual total of 17,448 alcohol-related deaths. As a 2002 Los Angeles Times article noted, the NHTSA estimates for that year attributed only about 5,000 of those deaths to a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger, or pedestrian (Vartabedian 2002). It should also be noted that vehicle safety has been improved since the 1980s, and this has likely resulted in a decrease in all auto fatalities, including alcohol-related deaths.

In 1999 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the NHTSA figures widely cited by MADD and concluded 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." [1]

Minimum drinking age laws

MADD argues that, given that the brain does not stop developing until the early 20s, alcohol consumption retards brain development and harms the parts of the brain responsible for judgment and memory.^{[citation needed]} MADD also frequently cites NHTSA data as proof that a high drinking age has saved 22,798 lives since 1975 by reducing the number of fatalities involving underage drinking drivers.^{[citation needed]}

However, evidence of harm to brain development is based on studies of rats and severe alcohol abusers rather than social drinkers.^[8] MADD's critics have pointed out that similar fatalities among the same age group in Canada have dropped by a similar proportion,^{[citation needed]} despite the fact that Canada's drinking age remains at 18 or 19 depending on the province.^{[citation needed]}

Operating hours and availability of alcohol

MADD has generally taken the position that a decrease in the availability of alcohol will lead to a decrease in consumption, and therefore a decrease in drunk driving. However, a study concluded, "these findings indicate that county-level prohibition is not necessarily effective in improving highway safety".^[9]

Empirical research has also revealed that later closing hours are generally associated with lower alcohol-related traffic crashes and fatalities (Halstead, R. Novato woman testifies at state hearing. Marin Independent Journal, April 20, 2004; Gordon, A. Young drivers go to pot. Toronto Star, February 10, 2006; Later sales don't increase crashes, DWI arrests. Associated Press, March 1, 2005; Reilly, S. & Snider, J. Drinking five or more drinks in a day. USA Today, May 21, 2004)

Criticisms

Candy Lightner's departure

With the passage of time, MADD decided to eliminate all driving after drinking any amount of alcoholic beverage. Ms. Lightner disagreed with this focus and asserted that “police ought to be concentrating their resources on arresting drunk drivers—not those drivers who happen to have been drinking. I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction.”^{[citation needed]}

MADD's founder, Candy Lightner, left the organization in 1985 and has since gone on to criticize the group as "neo-prohibitionist."^[10] 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"^[11][10].

Under-21 drinking

Retired sociologist David J. Hanson questions the effectiveness and relevance of MADD's insistence that minors should not drink alcohol. Hanson argues such policies possibly encourage underage and reckless drinking, since current public policy produces a supervision paradox where it can be difficult to assist and educate younger people in making responsible judgments about alcohol consumption; he compares the behavior of American youth to their European counterparts, who live in a society with "more liberal" consumption laws.^[12] Also, he believes that it encourages some younger people to drink, to show their contempt for a law they feel is unjust, since in most other countries, 18-year olds, and even younger people, can consume alcohol legally, and that it would be safer to have them drinking legally in supervised environments.

According to Hanson, "research on the drinking age has not been able to verify a cause-and-effect relationship between the law and alcohol use or abuse." Hanson further notes, "Many studies show no relationship between the two variables while others report that some alcohol-related fatalities have shifted from the 18-20 age group to the 21-24 age group. When it comes to the effects of the drinking age, the most we can say is that the jury is still out."^[12]

Civil liberty aspects

Radley Balko, a libertarian writer, talks about the possible social implications of some of MADD's policies. He writes, "In its eight-point plan to 'jump-start the stalled war on drunk driving,' MADD advocates the use of highly publicized but random roadblocks to find drivers who have been drinking. Even setting aside the civil liberties implications, these checkpoints do little to get dangerous drunks off the road. Rather, they instill fear in people who have a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ballgame or a toast at a retirement party."

Efficacy of MADD's proposals

Breath alcohol ignition interlock devices

Additionally MADD has proposed that breath alcohol ignition interlock devices should be installed in all new cars.^[13] Tom Incantalupo wrote "Ultimately, the group said yesterday, it wants so-called alcohol interlock devices factory-installed in all new cars. "The main reason why people continue to drive drunk today is because they can," MADD president Glynn Birch said at a news teleconference yesterday from Washington, D.C."

Sarah Longwell, a spokeswoman for the American Beverage Institute responded to MADD's desire to legislate breathalyzers into every vehicle in America by stating "This interlock campaign is not about eliminating drunk driving, it is about eliminating all moderate drinking prior to driving. The 40 million Americans who drink and drive responsibly should be outraged." She also points out that "Many states have laws that set the presumptive level of intoxication at .05% and you can't adjust your interlock depending on which state you're driving in. Moreover, once you factor in liability issues and sharing vehicles with underage drivers you have pushed the preset limit down to about .02%. It will be a de facto zero tolerance policy." ^[14]

Some point out that the policy assumes that citizens are guilty of drunkenness and requires them to prove themselves innocent not only before they drive but repeatedly while they drive. [2]

A serious concern is that the devices might actually increase crashes. The "California Department of Motor Vehicle’s “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California” concluded that the devices “are not effective in reducing DUI convictions or incidents [after being imposed] for first-time DUI offenders.” (The study did show, however, that the risk of crashing was higher for offenders with a lock installed—perhaps because they were being asked to conduct breath tests while driving.) If the locks have no effect when imposed after a first DUI conviction—which presumably selects for the most likely drunk drivers—what is the chance that they will have an effect if foisted upon millions of people who simply want a new car?" [3]

Victim impact panels

MADD promotes the use of victim impact panels (VIPs), in which judges require DWI offenders to hear victims or relatives of victims of drunk driving crashes relate their stories. MADD received $3,749,000 in 2004 from VIP fees. 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. According to the John Howard Society, 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.^[15] 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.^[16]

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.^[17]

In 2005, John 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. ^[18]

Many who are otherwise sympathetic to MADD's cause feel the organization has gone too far. Balko argued in a December 2002 article that MADD's policies are becoming overbearing. "In fairness, MADD deserves credit for raising awareness of the dangers of driving while intoxicated. It was almost certainly MADD's dogged efforts to spark public debate that effected the drop in fatalities since 1980, when Candy Lightner founded the group after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver," Balko wrote. "But MADD is at heart a bureaucracy, a big one. It boasts an annual budget of $45 million, $12 million of which pays for salaries, pensions and benefits. Bureaucracies don't change easily, even when the problems they were created to address change."^[19]

Blood alcohol content

MADD's critics point out that the organization is focused entirely upon the presence of alcohol in the body, rather than upon the actual danger posed by any impairment.^{[citation needed]} The original drunk driving laws addressed the danger by making it a criminal offense to drive a vehicle while impaired — that is, while "under the influence of alcohol"; the amount of alcohol in the body was simply evidence of that impairment.^{[citation needed]} With MADD's significant influence, however, all 50 states have now passed laws making it a criminal offense to drive with a designated level of alcohol, regardless of whether the driver is impaired or not.^{[citation needed]} MADD then successfully lobbied to lower that original level of .10% down to .08%, and are actively working to lower it even further.^{[citation needed]}

Conflict of interest criticism

Balko criticizes MADD for not demanding higher excise taxes on the distilled spirits industry, even as it demands beer producers pay higher excise taxes. "Interestingly," Balko writes, "MADD refrains from calling for an added tax on distilled spirits, an industry that the organization has partnered with on various drunk driving awareness projects. And MADD has made no secret of its desire to lower the legal blood- alcohol level from the current .08 in most places to .06, .04 or even to zero. This despite studies showing that most alcohol-caused traffic fatalities involved drivers with a level of 0.14 or higher."^[19]

High fundraising costs

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 notes 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^[20] (MADD Money. Investigative report, K5 News, Seattle, WA.). In December 2001, Worth magazine listed MADD as one of its "100 best charities". Charity Navigator rates MADD as needing improvement.^[21].

MADD's opinion of opponents of sobriety checkpoints

MADD writes that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught”. ^[22]

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, and Slash formerly of Guns N' Roses who were 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."

MADD presidents

• Candy Lightner 1980–1985
• Norma Phillips Thorworth 1985–1988
• Micky Sadoff 1988–1991
• Milo Kirk 1991–1993
• Rebecca Brown 1993–1995
• Katherine Prescott 1995–1997
• Karolyn Nunnallee 1998–1999
• Millie Webb 2000–2002^[23]
• Wendy Hamilton 2002–2005^[24]
• Glynn Birch July 2005–June 2008^[25]

See also

• MADD Canada
• SADD

References

• Vartabedian, Ralph. 2002. "A Spirited Debate Over DUI Laws". Los Angeles Times, December 30, pp. A1.
• Brzenzinski, Piotr C. Drunk Until Proven Innocent. Harvard Crimson, November 21, 2006.

External links

• MADD website
• Toronto Star: MADD's 'exorbitant costs' anger charity's volunteers No longer there
• Toronto Star: MADD responds to Star stories No longer there