September 9, 2002
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is one of those special interest groups that, unlike most others, have probably accomplished its goals. It wasn’t that long ago that drinking and driving was viewed as being socially acceptable. It seems like only yesterday that Johnny Carson was advising his Tonight Show audience not to drink and drive because they might spill it. Now impaired driving is seen by society as anti-social behaviour and a serious crime. There will always be drivers who will drive while drunk, as there will always be shoplifters and child molesters, but MADD’s role of changing attitudes is just about finished.
Organizations like MADD who manage to accomplish their main goals inevitably move to something else. MADD is now going after the consumption of alcohol and should probably change its name to MAD, Mothers Against Drinking. MADD has become a member of the anti-choice crowd; the ones who want to tell you how, where, when and what to eat and drink. These groups are against consumers having any choice at all (except of course, for abortion). You would think that if MADD changed its direction it would be towards highway safety. But, no. When Tom Hayworth, an American lobbyist for MADD was asked on MSNBC about deaths caused by drivers using cell phones compared to impaired drivers, he answered, "I have no idea, nor do I care". But they seem to care about the evils of the demon rum, even when it’s not consumed by drivers.
In July of this year, MADD Canada’s Windsor Ontario branch was closed down for allowing a festival to, in part, be sponsored by a beer company, thus contravening MADD’s policy of not accepting funds from the beer and liquor industry. It’s hard to understand how refusing donations from the liquor industry could be beneficial to a group that is always out soliciting funds. MADD has become anti-drinking.
MADD is opposed to proposed legislation in British Columbia that will allow drinking establishments, in conjunction with local bylaws to remain open until 4 a.m. Under the guise of reducing impaired driving, MADD wants to limit the freedom of individuals as to when they want to consume alcohol. They have not considered the fact that someone who is sober at 2 a.m. is not necessarily going to drink for the extra two hours and drive home drunk. Their opposition does not take into account that people who willingly binge drink and then drive are likely to get hammered before closing, whether that time is 2 a.m., 4 a.m. or 5 in the afternoon.
In a report released by MADD Canada on August 29, 2002, entitled "The Real Facts on Alcohol Use, Injuries and Death", the group goes far beyond drinking and driving and deals with binge drinking by students and alcohol- related violence. However admirable these items are, they are not related to what MADD is known for. In a rather strange statistic, the report states that 41 per cent of pedestrians involved in accidents have been drinking, 85 per cent of whom had more than the legal limit of alcohol in their blood. The difference between pedestrians and drivers is of course that those who walk are not at risk to hurt and kill others using the roads. MADD’s next step will probably be to advocate random police stops of people going out on a midnight stroll. Resembling the nanny groups who want to make you healthier by taxing fast foods, MADD is also in favour of raising taxes on liquor and beer.
It is no wonder that Candy Lightner has distanced herself from the organization that she founded because the organization has appeared to have lost its way. Anyone considering donating to MADD should familiarize themselves with what the group is actually doing. It’s not just about drinking and driving any more.
Arthur Weinreb is a lawyer and author and Associate Editor of Canadafreepress.com, he can be reached at: aweinreb@interlog.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement