DUI, MADD and the “New Prohibition”

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on October 20th, 2004

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a well-organized (over 600 chapters), well-funded (IRS Form 990 shows revenue for 2002 of $48,051,441) and dangerous group of well-intentioned zealots — the very same folks who gave us Prohibition decades ago.For many years now, MADD’s agenda has been clear: apply political pressure to get ever-harsher drunk driving laws, law enforcement and punishment.

But what is the final goal? When will we have reached a state when MADD is satisfied that the drunk driving laws are sufficient?

The answer is simple: zero tolerance. No drinking and driving. And, eventually, no drinking. Exaggeration? Paranoia? Let’s look at a little DUI history…..

The original drunk driving laws were simple and fair: Don’t drive under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Then, years ago, law enforcement came up with crude devices to measure alcohol on the breath of drunk driving suspects. But what did, say, a .13% blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) mean?They turned to the American Medical Association which, in 1938, created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents"; at the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".

After some study, these two groups came up with their findings: a driver with .15% BAC or higher could be presumed to be "under the influence"; those under .15% could not. That’s right, .15%. And that recommendation lasted for 22 years. But certain groups of "concerned mothers" were not happy with the low DUI arrest and conviction rates.

Under increasing political pressure, the committees "revisited" the question in 1960 and agreed to lower the presumed level of intoxication to .10%. Had the human body changed in 22 years? Had the AMA been negligent in their earlier studies? Or were politics and law trumping scientific truth?

Well, the arrest and conviction rates shot up, but there were still too many people escaping the DUI net. Then MADD was formed by Candy Lightner (later to quit the organization and become a spokesperson for the liquor industry). Soon after, legislation began appearing in many states that created a second crime: driving with a BAC of .10% or higher.

This new crime did not require the driver to be affected by alcohol: even if sober, he would be guilty if his blood-alcohol was .10%. In effect, it completely ignored the questions of intoxication, driving impairment and individual tolerance to alcohol. And, despite questions of double jeopardy, the individual could be charged and even convicted of both the traditional DUI and the new .10% crimes! This gave police and prosecutors a powerful new weapon, and drunk driving arrests/convictions jumped once again.

This was not good enough. Under increasing pressure from an ever more powerful MADD, in 1990 four states lowered the blood-alcohol level in DUI cases to .08%; others soon followed and, ten years later, federal politicians (with one eye on MADD) passed an appropriations bill in effect coercing all states into adopting the new .08% BAC standard. Since then, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has pressured state legislatures to drop the blood-alcohol level to .05%. In the meantime, they had been successful in getting nearly universal adoption of a .01% BAC standard (termed "ero tolerance") for drivers under 21.

So where are we headed with MADD in apparent control? A federal .05% DUI standard is on the horizon and, in fact, has already been adopted to some extent in a few states. "Zero tolerance" for adult drivers is clearly on MADD’s agenda.

And then?

In 1999, MADD’s National Board of Directors unanimously voted to change the organization’s mission statement to include the prevention of underage drinking. Not underage drinking and driving — just drinking. Let me say that again: MADD has now formally shifted its focus away from "drunk driving" and towards the broader "problem" of drinking.

Can a new era of prohibition be far behind?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] As part of its 25th Anniversay celebration, the President of MADD is once again touting the organization’s success in the following recent press release: MADD is cautiously optimistic about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) report showing a 2.1 percent decrease in alcohol-related traffic fatalities from 2003 to 2004. NHTSA’s preliminary Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data estimates that 16,654 people died in preventable alcohol-related traffic crashes, compared to 17,013 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2003…. We believe that the slight decrease in alcohol-related traffic fatalities is linked to increased law enforcement efforts and 13 states starting to enforce the .08 percent Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) law in 2003. As of July 2004, all states have passed the .08 BAC law, but Minnesota’s law will not go into effect until August of this year. […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 11, 2006 @ 3:27 pm

  2. […] As I’ve posted repeatedly in the past, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a self-serving beaurocracy focused equally on Prohibition and cash.  According to their own IRS statements, the U.S. organization alone brings in over $50 million a year in contributions — and, according to watchdog Charity Navigator, has a low 2-star efficiency rating (the Director of Program and Development, for example, is paid $152,408 a year). […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — December 21, 2006 @ 1:11 pm

  3. […] The flaw becomes particularly noticeable when dealing with politically unpopular subjects. And few topics are as politically “incorrect” as drunk driving. Judges are, after all, politically sensitive animals who want to be reelected. Put another way, it is very easy to rule in favor of the prosecution in DUI cases — particularly when powerful pressure groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (annual revenues of over $51 million) are so influential in elections and in legislatures. There are few advocates for the accused or the Constitution during election campaigns. […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — January 18, 2007 @ 7:02 am

  4. Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — January 19, 2007 @ 2:19 pm

  5. […] DUI, MADD and the "New Prohibition" […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — March 25, 2007 @ 1:11 pm

  6. […] The primary goal is Prohibition. Checkpoints have little to do with public safety. They are fishing expiditions for drugs and DWI. I would rather be free from unreasonable search and seizure than to have the false security of a checkpoint. Vehicles are stopped in a specific sequence, such as every other vehicle or every fourth, fifth or sixth vehicle. Currently, there are 10 states that do not allow checkpoints and MADD aims to advocate for change in these states. Probable cause is such an outdated idea. Freedom and liberty just get in the way of good public safety measures like chekpoints. I guess stopping every 4th or 5th car makes it ok? Why not just raid every fourth or fifth house and look for drugs? Or arrest every fourth or fifth citizen and look for terrorists? So, this Labor Day, have fun but remember to designate a sober driver or one will be designated for you by law enforcement officers hitting the streets in search of drunk drivers. […]

    Pingback by [*standing, clapping*] « that’s right, i’m not from texas — August 31, 2007 @ 9:02 am

  7. […] level, as recommended years ago by the American Medical Association, was .15%. See my post, DUI, MADD and the New Prohibition.”Good luck, Lawrence, at trying to bring blind hysterics within arm’s reach of reason. These are […]

    Pingback by Two--Four — May 15, 2008 @ 5:11 am

  8. […] DUI, MADD and the “New Prohibition” […]

    Pingback by DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution — September 17, 2008 @ 11:44 am


Comments

  1. Police Driving Intoxicated People Home and Preventing DUI
    Palm Beach and South Palm Beach Police have developed a novel idea to prevent DUI arrests: they provide a ride for residents and guests before they get into the car. As attorney George Creal of DUI Webblog recently reported, the Palm Beach and South Palm Beach police promote the novel idea of helping people first.

    This novel idea apparently works. Last year, Palm Beach police made 39 DUI arrests. This year, they have made 25 DUI arrests. South Palm Beach Police reported only seven DUI arrests this year and four in 2005. Compare this with 23,864 alcohol-related crashes reported throughout the state in 2005 and 1,239 fatalities and you will see that these police departments have found a way to minimize DUI’s, and the resulting tragic consequences.

    Apparently, Police will drive residents directly to their homes. Palm Beach police will assist guests who live outside the community by helping them make other arrangements, such as contacting family members or local taxi companies.

    However, the Palm Beach police quickly pointed out that they will arrest anyone found driving under the influence, and give them a ride to jail.

    Perhaps Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would find this novel approach to reducing drunk driving encouraging, and petition more law enforcement agencies to adopt this prevention strategy.

    Post by Nicholasville Kentucky, Personal Injury, Criminal Defense, and DUI Attorney, Stephen J. Isaacs.

    Comment by ruReadyMyFriend — March 27, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.