I think this helps with our arguments that opposition to MADD isn't confined to just one end of the political spectrum:
(STILL) MAD ABOUT MADD [Andrew Stuttaford]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_...ive.asp#078969
Radley Balko gives a well-deserved thrashing to MADD, an organization that started out with the best of intentions (and in response to a real social problem), but which has now mutated into something bullying, malevolent and repellent. Correctly, Radley draws attention to the possibly dangerous consequences of a reduction in the upper blood/alcohol limit to 0.8, as well as its absurdity:
“MADD's biggest victory on this front was a nationwide blood-alcohol threshold of .08, down from .10. But when two-thirds of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involve blood-alcohol levels of .14 and above, and the average fatal accident occurs at .17, this move doesn't make much sense. It's like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 to catch people who drive 100 miles per hour. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reviewed all the statistical data and concluded "the evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws by themselves result in reductions in the number and severity of crashes involving alcohol."
And then there’s this:
“MADD is also pushing its agenda onto family laws, including a zero tolerance policy for divorced parents. Under the bills MADD is trying to push through state legislatures, a parent caught consuming one beer or glass of wine before driving could face penalties that, according to MADD, "should include, but are not limited to" — "incarceration," "change of primary custody," or "termination of parental rights." This means that if you take your kid to the game, have a beer in the third inning, then drive home, you could very well lose your rights as a father.”
Connoisseurs of such matters will note (sorry, Ramesh), the way in which ‘the children’, those Trojan ponies of adult freedom, are, as usual, brought into the argument.
But then comes the final kicker. The taxpayer – that’s you and me – is subsidizing this nonsense. MADD is entitled to its degeneration into a neo-prohibitionist clique, but not, surely, on our dime.
“Unfortunately, the tax-exempt organization has become so enmeshed with government it has nearly become a formal government agency. MADD gets millions of dollars in federal and state funding, and has a quasi-official relationship with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In some jurisdictions, DWI defendants are sentenced to attend and pay for alcoholic-recovery groups sponsored by MADD. In many cities, MADD officials are even allowed to man sobriety checkpoints alongside police.On the occasion of its 25th anniversary, perhaps its time Congress revisit the spigot of federal funding flowing to MADD, and consider revoking the organization's tax-exempt status. Clearly, MADD isn't the same organization it was 25 years ago. It has morphed into an anti-alcohol lobbying organization. There's nothing wrong with that — it's certainly within MADD's and its supporters' First Amendment rights.But taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize them.”
I’ll drink to that.
Posted at 02:03 PM
All opinions, links, and images contained on the forums represent the views of their respective authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Youth Rights Association. To view the official positions of the organization, please go here.
The information contained on the forums is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical or legal advice. Please seek the services of a physician or an attorney when making decisions that could affect your health or well-being.
The information contained on the forums is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical or legal advice. Please seek the services of a physician or an attorney when making decisions that could affect your health or well-being.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks