A Madd Agenda

The once honorable organization known as MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) has lost sight of the original goal it set out to achieve. The Anti drunk driving organization that the American people have come to know as MADD is gone; it is now an organization that will only be satisfied with one outcome: prohibition. Though MADD adamantly denies the fact that they are a neo prohibitionist group the evidence clearly shows that they will use any tactics found essential to create public sympathy in order to achieve their goal of criminalizing the consumption of any amount of alcohol.

When the statistics that MADD reports are researched by another party the numbers are often proven to be inflated or false. According to an article published at activistcash.com (2007):

In a three-page 1998 report, sociologist and MADD national board member Ralph Hingson claimed that lowering the nationwide drunk-driving arrest threshold from .10% to 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) would save 500 lives a year (Ð'¶14).

Ralph Hingson conducted his survey with prejudice, choosing which states to compare in the survey. Hingson claimed he used neighbouring states to conduct his research. However, when a renowned traffic research scientist, Dr Robert Scopatz looked at the study, it revealed some irregularities in the definition of "neighbouring states". Scopatz found that Hingons compared California, a .08% Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) state to Texas a .08% BAC state. If Hingon had compared actual neighbouring states such as Arizona, which is a .08% state, to California the study would have shown that there were no life saving qualities for lowering the BAC from .10% to.08% (Pena, n.d.). "Despite the challenges introduced by reality, MADD still manages to cite studies claiming that the .08% BAC law saves lives" (Pena, n.d., p 3).

It is apparent that the general public confuses the term alcohol-related with drunken driving and if the representatives of MADD are not the cause of this confusion they undoubtedly capitalize on it. The President of MADD, while addressing the Senate Committee on Appropriations, cited figures from NHTSA's study claiming "Alcohol-involved [or alcohol-related] crashes accounted for 21 percent of nonfatal injury crash costs, and an overwhelming 46 percent of all fatal injury crash costs. In order to reverse this trend, the nation cannot maintain the status quo and expect a different result." (Hamilton, 2003) However, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) own definition the term, alcohol-related, is vague and extremely inaccurate:

NHTSA defines a fatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if either a driver Or A nonmotorist (usually a pedestrian) had a measurable or estimated [italics added] Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.01 Grams Per Deciliter (g/dl) or above. NHTSA defines a nonfatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if police indicate on the police accident report that there is evidence of alcohol present. The code does not necessarily mean that a driver or nonoccupant was tested for alcohol.

(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005)

Without further explanation of NHTSA's definition it is nearly impossible to perceive the numbers to be accurate. Another disclaimer made public by NHTSA is "NHTSA estimates alcohol involvement when alcohol test results are unknown." (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005) If NHTSA estimates alcohol involvement when the results of an alcohol test are unknown than would that not make everyone subject to the estimation calculation?

Regardless of the obvious discrepancies found in the studies conducted by NHTSA the numbers have hardly reduced over the most recent three year statistics available. According to NHSTA's own studies the alcohol-related deaths for 2003 were 40% of the entire motor vehicle fatal accidents, while at first glance this appears to be way too high, taking a further look at the numbers one can deduct that this is grossly exaggerated. For the year 2003 60% percent of the reported 31% of deaths in fatal motor vehicle accidents were reported to have a party involved with a BAC of 0.00% (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005). 0.00% is not drunk at all, yet the accidents are reported to have alcohol involved. As shown in Figure 1, removing the unsubstantiated 60% from the overall 40% gives us a much less shocking percentage of 24% and one still has to keep in mind that an undeterminable amount of these percentages can involve anyone other than the driver using the term "alcohol-related" as defined by NHTSA.

The alcohol-related accident statistics remain almost identical through the years 2004 and 2005 while the alcohol-related fatalities reportedly increased by 1% in 2004 and 2005 the percentage of alcohol-related fatalities with a party having a BAC level of 0.00% also increased by 1%. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005). This should conclude that the antics performed by MADD and the increased punishments for anyone who may have taken a drink and decided to drive are essentially ineffective. Furthermore, the reported percentage of persons involved in fatal alcohol-related accidents with BAC levels between .01% and .07% is 5% and 6%. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005) Undoubtedly this is a broad scale; but nevertheless if these numbers are even remotely accurate than why is MADD pursuing an even lower BAC rate? While some may consider any number of motor vehicle deaths related to alcohol too high, society has to consider the risks of persecuting the wrong people for the crime.

While addressing the Senate Committee on Appropriations the National President of MADD, Wendy J. Hamilton, cites DOT and NHTSA statistics that includes all deaths that occurred on American highways between 2001 and 2002:

According to DOT, motor vehicle crashes are responsible for 95 percent of transportation sector deaths and 99 percent of all transportation-related injuries within the United States as well as the leading cause of death for people ages 4 through 33. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the nation's highways, up from 42,116 in 2001.

(Hamilton, 2003)

The argument has no bearing on the alcohol-related accidents excluding the fact that somewhere in the statistics that she cites are the inaccurate statistics of alcohol-related motor-vehicle deaths. Yet, it is another example of the tactics used by MADD to use any means necessary to conjure up sympathy and public outrage to further their agenda. Considering the President of MADD is addressing the Senate Committee on Appropriations would it not be prudent to conclude that the statistics