Robert Farago
by Robert Farago
madd vs abi

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a formidable political force. As you’d expect, the group supports police “sobriety checkpoints,” a .08 blood alcohol content threshhold for drunk driving convictions and ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers. As we’ve reported before, the American Beverage Institute (ABI) opposes random roadblocks and believes that the .08 level is set too low. And they’re not happy about ignition interlocks for anyone convicted of drunk driving. Obviously, this means war. MADD has opened a new front in their anti-ABI campaign. A press release names ABI members and completely mis-characterizes the trade group’s position on drink driving (“ABI’s consistent stand is that America’s drunk driving laws are too strict and should not be enforced) and intimates that ALL “family restaurants” (quotation marks theirs) should quit the organization. “The American public wants to know why these so called ‘family-friendly’ restaurants appear to be putting alcohol profits ahead of public safety,” said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD. “We call upon these restaurants to explain to the public why they oppose laws proven to keep drunk drivers off the road or, preferably, to support these life-saving measures.” Ends. Means. Justification?

Join the conversation
4 of 64 comments
  • Bevo Bevo on Sep 28, 2008

    MADD has moved into the stratosphere populated by extremist groups such as PETA and the NRA whose sole goal now is self perpetuation than anything else. MADD long ago morphed into a latter day prohibition group. Reasonable drinking or responsible drinking cannot be tolerated. Instead, we must allow all booze because it MIGHT lead to drinking and driving. Operating a motor vehicle while under the impairment of almost any drug including alcohol, meth, pot, acid, etc. should not be tolerated. However, who carries if the passenger is polluted or is drinking a little rum with that soda? The good nannies and other nattering naboobs at MADD care a lot. As far as I am concerned, we as a society must tell every person who works with or supports MADD to shut the hell up. Carrie Nation must be smiling from her special place in Hell.

  • Kristen Kristen on Oct 07, 2008

    "If I walked into a McDonald’s and sprayed the place down with an AK-47, but by sheer dumb luck did NOT hit anyone I would still go to jail for a long time. Even the NRA would not be chipping in to my legal defense fund. I see very little difference between using the Kalashnikov and driving drunk. Go MADD." I think a very telling difference is that someone who is firing an assault rifle into a McDonalds, is likely doing so in an attempt to hurt or kill someone. Regardless of the possibility of similar outcomes, a drunk driver is not attempting to kill. Your post smacks of the same emotion fueled exaggeration that MADD has become known for. As a matter of fact, I remember reading a quote from a MADD publication where a comparison was made between drunk driving and drive by shootings. To buy that particular brand of tripe, one must voluntarily blind themselves to important factors such as intent and malice.

  • Stephan Wilkinson Stephan Wilkinson on Oct 07, 2008

    So get them for manslaughter, not murder.

  • Steven Irwin Steven Irwin on Jun 26, 2010

    I don't debate that drinking and driving is dangerous. What I do find unacceptable is that a non-proffit organization like madd has so much control over the Department of Transportation. As was stated earlier, highway funds are withheld from states until they comply. What the public does not know is that not only are DUI laws introduced by madd- they also push for split speed limits and lane restrictions for big trucks and others involved in the transportation industry. The bottom line is that this type of lobbying and legislation raises shipping rates for everthing including but not exclusive to food, clothing, medicine and building materials for homes and businesses. It's like the big churches and the Christian Coalition continuing to debate Roe vs Wade at taxpayer expense. Madd does not inform the public that their stats include the drunk drivers who are killed in their own single car wrecks. Again I do not condone drinking and driving although I disagree with invading peoples rights, truckers rights, and anyone else that is wondering how we got along before we had all these self-appointed babbysitters who concern themselves with fundraising numbers ahead of lives and the right of people to be secure in their own property. We have all herd the stories of those who have had DUI's in their driveways and such. Remember "Demolition Man"?- Hence if it is dangerous (Sex, Drinking, Smoking) it is illegal. Is that what the people want? That is what we will get unless we take a stand against out of control groups like madd.