With the holiday season upon us, there is more concern about drinking and driving. One organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), is out masquerading as a public safety organization when in reality they have become a prohibitionist organization with dire consequences, some that I have to deal with.

MADD was created in 1980 by Candace Lightner after her 12-year-old daughter was killed by a drunk driver who had four prior drunk driving convictions. MADD changed the world for the better by raising public awareness of the dangers of drunken driving. MADD grew rapidly in its first five years, but their fight against drunk driving shifted from alcohol abusers toward responsible drinkers.

By 1985, it boasted 364 chapters, 600,000 members and a $12 million budget — enough money and do-gooders to get exaggerated laws enacted; first in 1984 under Reagan forcing all states to raise the minimum drinking age to 21, then in 2000 it convinced President Clinton to reduce the permitted blood alcohol level to 0.08 from 0.10 for driving under the influence. No state can change these regulations without losing their federal highway funding. Political manipulation at its finest.

Lightner resigned in protest with MADD’s shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general. As she stated in 2002, “The majority of crashes occur with blood levels of .15, .18 and .25. Lowering the level was not a solution to the problem.” From coroners whom I have talked to, most believe problems don’t begin until about 0.12, which would be a more realistic legal level.

Lightner told The Cleveland Plain Dealer in 1992 that BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) legislation “ignores the real core of the problem. If we really want to save lives, let’s go after the most dangerous drivers on the road. I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol, I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”

MADD’s campaign has law enforcement believing that the current level of 0.08 is based on some fact. Not so. At 0.08 there is little probability of causing an accident. Because of MADD’s low-limit success, the fight against drunk driving has shifted from serious abusers toward responsible drinkers. Law enforcement has become less selective, less prepared to ferret out drunk drivers and they are losing focus on the real threat, namely habitually drunk drivers.

Since alcohol is so much a part of our society, targeting and arresting casual, moderate drinkers is a waste of time and resources. It needlessly criminalizes more people and causes them a horrid ordeal. As MADD strives for still lower limits, the abuse of citizens will worsen. Rather, those who demonstrate responsible and moderate alcohol use should be commended, not arrested.

The MADD neoprohibitionists aim to muddle the distinction between drunk driving and driving after any amount of alcohol, no matter how slight. Former MADD president Katherine Prescott said, “Responsible drinking means no drinking.” Zero tolerance is their goal even though they know citizens suffer greatly under this policy. Washington, D.C., had to curtail enforcement of its zero tolerance policy in 2005 after so many abuses by overzealous cops.

Zero tolerance is not an advantage. In my army days as a Morse code interceptor, it required fast and accurate typing. We learned that a little alcohol could improve these functions! It was never implemented.

Karolyn Nunnallee, president of MADD, predicted in 2000 that a nationwide 0.08 standard “will save 600 lives every year.” It hasn’t worked that way. In the July 2007 issue of Contemporary Economic Policy, it examined data by Sam Houston State University and concluded, “There’s no evidence that lowering the legal level reduced fatality rates.” Enough said?

I reviewed auto deaths in San Miguel County for the last 10 years. We had 17 deaths, six involved alcohol whose levels were .060, .163, .170, .240, .260, and .360. One involved drugs. Although one driver’s death was below the legal limit, I believe other factors were involved. Noteworthy is that the alcohol level of all others was twice the legal level of 0.08 or higher, even four times.

Note also, when organizations give the number of alcohol involved deaths, they seldom give levels. I am certain that if they did, it would show the vast majority well above .08, even 0.10. More likely, they would correspond to those in San Miguel County. MADD of course does not want this revealed.

Another bad law with good intentions is the 21-year-age limit, also instigated by MADD. We are one of only four countries that maintain this limit, the others being Mongolia, Palau and Indonesia. Excluded are the fun-loving Muslim countries that prohibit alcohol outright.

This 21 year-old law has created the “forbidden fruit” and is linked to an astonishing increase in binge drinking among adolescents and young adults. Drinking to intoxication is the norm for 18-20 year olds, which significantly impairs one’s ability to make safe decisions, including the choice to get behind the wheel of an automobile.

When I went to college with an 18-year age limit, there was no thought of binge drinking. We had too much fun socializing at lounges, behaving as responsible young adults. We would have been stigmatized otherwise. It could be the same today if we gave our youth a chance. This approach works in the rest of the world.

Our youth are better prepared today because MADD has done a superb job of educating the public of the dangers of drunk driving. But, MADD  is unrelenting and refuses to admit that prohibition never works, causes more reckless drinking and worse, it forces it underground and breeds disrespect for the law.

Canada realized this in the early ‘70s and reversed their drinking age from 21 to 18 or 19 (depending on the province). U.S. students at Canadian universities say, “Drinking is no big deal.” When they return to the U.S. they say, “It is like walking backward in time.” Even the campus police don’t want the limit raised. As Inspector Sam D’Angelo at the University of Toronto (15,000 students) said, “Doing so would make it harder to track where drinking is occurring.” If Canada can do it, why can’t the U.S.?

For creating more problems than they solve, our alcohol laws are on a par with our draconian drug laws. In case readers think I am off-base, be advised there is a respected national organization with my same views. They plan to push for a change in our laws after the election in 2008. Don’t hesitate to visit their informative web site, www.chooseresponsibility.org.

Someday this country has to use common sense, refute MADD’s ideology and start saving young lives. It’s time to normalize behaviors at moderate levels.

Bob Dempsey
San Miguel County Coroner