MADD changed its mission
Walter, just before going to the liquor store, tells us that MADD has expanded its mandate. This is absolutely true: What else does comparing beer to heroin have to do with drunk driving? Is there a huge driving on heroin problem I’m not aware of?
This is a classic example of the institutional creep that happens once a group has accomplished its mission, at least as much of that mission as possible within human society. Drunk driving is stigmatized and harshly punished now; it’s extremely hard to believe that at one time it was tolerated, but it’s true. During the seventies safety groups led by the likes of Ralph Nader pushed very hard for passive restraint systems like airbags because they felt that unsafe driving, in large part caused by alcohol abuse, was going to be impossible to eliminate. Nader believed that drunk driving was so imbedded in the American psyche that pushing for tougher laws or running ads encouraging designated drivers was simply a waste of time.
But MADD won. So now what do they do? In a perfectly honest world they’d close up shop, or cut back their fundraising, staff, and budget and run a few ads here and there, maybe fight for new laws in backward areas where known drunks are still driving. Instead, they expand, and as those members who realize that the war is won move on, the group gets more and more radical.
In the name of honest representation they should at least drop the last D and become Mothers Against Drinking.
Popularity: 1% [?]
I guess it’s the old saying “Power corrupts, Absolute power corrurts absolutly.” Organizations will never stop what there doing because they do something as trival as accomplish their mission:)
Right now they have so many followers and there are so many people dependent on them there is no way they can just stop what their doing. So instead they set unrealistic goals that will never happen and prosecute any person or company that gets in their way. I really wish they would wise up and see how my company is reducing drunk driving but instead they say we promote drinking and driving… If anyone wants to see what
I have done to Fight the War on Drunk Driving please read this article or visit my site.
http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyle/20030820drunkbreath0820fnp3.asp
http://www.saveabuddy.com
Phil LaBoon
Drinking and driving has to stop BEORE the police get involved… ecause then it’s way too late…
Madd believes that more laws are the key to stop drinking and driving. Infact, ther claim on their website that are responsible for over 2600 new dui laws. Now I believe laws are a good start, you need to change how people’s attitude towards drinking and driving. I personally believe the key is for more people to get invloved. If you guys are interested in joining my new drinking and driving organization feel free to contact me about starting a branch. And Daniel I see your posts on a few blogs I frequent and would love to work with you on trying to reduce drinking and driving.:)
By the way you might notice instead of my normal bland http://www.saveabuddy.com site I made a very informative site that gives facts about dui and alcohol.
Phil
http://www.yaerd.org
DWI, drunk driving, dui, and a license to drink.
Copyright: 1987-2005 © Bruce Alm.
The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.
This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;
murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, college binge drinking, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.
If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.
There could also be many other positive results;
families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we’ve all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.
This new law could go something like this:
Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.
For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages.
What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?
What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.
This permit doesn’t seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.
Most people of drinking age have a driver’s license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don’t drive.
This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.
After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now.
Would this be a violation of rights?
There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.
This could be a good saying, “If a person who doesn’t know how to drive shouldn’t have a license to drive, a person who doesn’t know how to drink shouldn’t have a license to drink.”
Here are some other pluses to this idea:
A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.
The need for A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could be greatly diminished as well.
What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.
Even though A.A. members as a group don’t become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.
A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said “One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S..”
If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue ‘down the drain,’ and so on.
But it doesn’t seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.
Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.
P.S.
What ever happened to the skid row drunk?
http://www.geocities.com/dwi_dui/index.html