The Evolution of MADD
The group commonly known as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) started out with a noble mission due to a horrible incident. Over the years their leadership, as well as the group's mission, has changed considerably.
History
In 1980 Cari Lightner was walking down a neighborhood street in California when she was struck and killed in a hit and run accident. Eventually, thanks to the efforts of Cari's mother Candice Lightner, police eventually arrested Clarence Busch for the crime. At the time of Cari's accident Busch had already been arrested for a previous hit and run in which he was driving drunk. From this accident and eventual arrest Candice Lightner began the MADD organization.
Influence on Laws
In the early 1980's the groups efforts gained attention of the New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg. The Senator was disturbed by the trend of teenagers from New Jersey traveling across the state line into New York to purchase alcohol. At the time, the minimum age to purchase alcohol in New Jersey was 21, but that was not the case in New York. In order to have a uniform law across all of the states, MADD lobbied congress for a severe penalty in order to promote compliance. States were informed that they would lose 10% of federal highway dollars if they didn't change the laws to increase the minimum age for buying and possessing alcohol up to the age of 21.
In addition to the influence on the legal drinking age, MADD fought for a different BAC level as well. When the blood alcohol content (BAC) tests were first introduced it was determined that people with a 0.15 level of alcohol in their body were considered impaired. However, MADD lobbied with congress to lower this level to 0.08. Congress changed the BAC standard in 2000 and all of the states followed suit by the year 2005.
Change in Direction
While the group originally began as a way to reduce drunk driving, MADD began to focus more on the mere act of drinking. They sought to promote new legislation raising taxes and excises on all types of beer. This sudden shift to try and stamp out legal alcohol consumption was not the focal point of the group's founder Candice Lightner. In 1985 Lightner decided to leave the group.
Criticisms of MADD
One of MADD's bragging points has been the drop in deaths from alcohol related accidents since the mid 1980's. MADD believes their support of stronger legislation is the primary cause for this reduction in deaths.
However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines an alcohol related accident as an event in which ANY alcohol is detected, whether in the driver that cause the accident or any other person involved in the accident. Furthermore, the presence of alcohol is anything above 0.01, hardly a sign of drunk driving. The NHTSA claims that the overall safety of automobiles has increased dramatically since the 1980's, helping to reduce all fatalities from car crashes.
Another favorite point that MADD likes to argue is the number of laws that were saved since 1988 thanks to the increase in the drinking age to 21. MADD likes to use data from NHTSA to support their claims and oppose efforts to drop the age at which people can purchase alcohol.
Once again, their interpretation of data has some flaws. Experts have studied the trends and feel that since more people are aware of the potential dangers from drunk driving, fewer people are willing to take a chance of getting behind the wheel after significant alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the increased fines, jail time and other punishments associated with DUI arrests have also led to a noticeable decline in drinking and driving.
Some experts have also pointed out that MADD does not seem to carry the same disdain for distilled spirits and wine since their efforts seem to focus primarily on beer. MADD has been adamant on raising taxes on beer in order to discourage its consumption. However, similar attempts to raise taxes on other forms of alcohol have not been adopted by MADD.
Random Roadblocks
MADD has stated that they are pushing for an increase of random roadblocks with sobriety tests. They feel that these roadblocks will enable law enforcement to easily capture more DUI offenders.
However, many people feel that these roadblocks will simply instill fear in the general populace. People that enjoy a glass of wine with their dinner or partake in a toast at a corporate meeting will be afraid to drive, even though their minimal consumption would have no affect on their driving ability. This type of fear of law enforcement creates a divide and detest for police officers that makes their job more difficult.