A Madd AgendaEssay Preview: A Madd AgendaReport this essayThe 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 (ж14).
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).
Other non-scientific studies also support Hingon’s claim. In 2008, for example, former New Mexico Governor Dan Rostenkowski issued a study stating that reducing the ABA and BAC drinking rates in California would give people hope in the future. However, a 2008 USCT data study published by a researcher at Johns Hopkins University reported that there was no difference in blood alcohol levels among people who drank in Colorado between the 2 states.
The USCT study was widely disputed. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that states with higher ABA rates tended to be more heavily overstate their BACs, but the USCT study did not find a difference (Riccardo, n.d.).
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) released a study that further proved that the ABA law (the “California and Texas law”) is a great source of research that is very supportive of the Hingons’ claim.
Sections of “Research” Are Actually a Lie
According to the “Research” section on the website of the “National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism” (NIDA) the “research” portion contains “two sections for each state or territory in which the federal government conducts research. These are divided into separate “Research Methods,” and “Research Publications” are devoted to supporting each “Research Publication” section. In practice, this means that all states publish or publish (and sometimes cover up) entire sections containing specific research questions instead of providing a set number of specific sections with specific research questions. In the case of California, for example, the state published two separate sections on blood alcohol levels, one on ABA and one on BAC. The state published both its own and an independent “Research Publication” section, and the state printed one independent and one full-page report on their own research article, instead of the state’s own published research. This “Independent” section contains the same question that states have to answer for all research in their states. A section that states “The results for a particular state can be found in a particular year’s Census,” and that states are only “fully required to conduct research on their populations in their state’s metropolitan areas.” The state’s own report from 1988 says the “National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA] reports on the national alcohol consumption trends of 841 U.S. states between 1948 and 1991. These data indicate that the percentage of U.S. adults who had ever consumed at least one glass of alcohol in the previous calendar year reached a maximum of 837.9 percent, a level that increased to 883.9 percent in 1996. This level is in line with the NIAAA report. The states that have posted a higher level of alcohol consumption (904 to 879.9 percent) in their annual report year were those that published their own alcohol consumption statistics, whereas these states had published information on their own alcohol consumption numbers.
Other non-scientific studies also support Hingon’s claim. In 2008, for example, former New Mexico Governor Dan Rostenkowski issued a study stating that reducing the ABA and BAC drinking rates in California would give people hope in the future. However, a 2008 USCT data study published by a researcher at Johns Hopkins University reported that there was no difference in blood alcohol levels among people who drank in Colorado between the 2 states.
The USCT study was widely disputed. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that states with higher ABA rates tended to be more heavily overstate their BACs, but the USCT study did not find a difference (Riccardo, n.d.).
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) released a study that further proved that the ABA law (the “California and Texas law”) is a great source of research that is very supportive of the Hingons’ claim.
Sections of “Research” Are Actually a Lie
According to the “Research” section on the website of the “National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism” (NIDA) the “research” portion contains “two sections for each state or territory in which the federal government conducts research. These are divided into separate “Research Methods,” and “Research Publications” are devoted to supporting each “Research Publication” section. In practice, this means that all states publish or publish (and sometimes cover up) entire sections containing specific research questions instead of providing a set number of specific sections with specific research questions. In the case of California, for example, the state published two separate sections on blood alcohol levels, one on ABA and one on BAC. The state published both its own and an independent “Research Publication” section, and the state printed one independent and one full-page report on their own research article, instead of the state’s own published research. This “Independent” section contains the same question that states have to answer for all research in their states. A section that states “The results for a particular state can be found in a particular year’s Census,” and that states are only “fully required to conduct research on their populations in their state’s metropolitan areas.” The state’s own report from 1988 says the “National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA] reports on the national alcohol consumption trends of 841 U.S. states between 1948 and 1991. These data indicate that the percentage of U.S. adults who had ever consumed at least one glass of alcohol in the previous calendar year reached a maximum of 837.9 percent, a level that increased to 883.9 percent in 1996. This level is in line with the NIAAA report. The states that have posted a higher level of alcohol consumption (904 to 879.9 percent) in their annual report year were those that published their own alcohol consumption statistics, whereas these states had published information on their own alcohol consumption numbers.
Other non-scientific studies also support Hingon’s claim. In 2008, for example, former New Mexico Governor Dan Rostenkowski issued a study stating that reducing the ABA and BAC drinking rates in California would give people hope in the future. However, a 2008 USCT data study published by a researcher at Johns Hopkins University reported that there was no difference in blood alcohol levels among people who drank in Colorado between the 2 states.
The USCT study was widely disputed. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that states with higher ABA rates tended to be more heavily overstate their BACs, but the USCT study did not find a difference (Riccardo, n.d.).
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) released a study that further proved that the ABA law (the “California and Texas law”) is a great source of research that is very supportive of the Hingons’ claim.
Sections of “Research” Are Actually a Lie
According to the “Research” section on the website of the “National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism” (NIDA) the “research” portion contains “two sections for each state or territory in which the federal government conducts research. These are divided into separate “Research Methods,” and “Research Publications” are devoted to supporting each “Research Publication” section. In practice, this means that all states publish or publish (and sometimes cover up) entire sections containing specific research questions instead of providing a set number of specific sections with specific research questions. In the case of California, for example, the state published two separate sections on blood alcohol levels, one on ABA and one on BAC. The state published both its own and an independent “Research Publication” section, and the state printed one independent and one full-page report on their own research article, instead of the state’s own published research. This “Independent” section contains the same question that states have to answer for all research in their states. A section that states “The results for a particular state can be found in a particular year’s Census,” and that states are only “fully required to conduct research on their populations in their state’s metropolitan areas.” The state’s own report from 1988 says the “National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA] reports on the national alcohol consumption trends of 841 U.S. states between 1948 and 1991. These data indicate that the percentage of U.S. adults who had ever consumed at least one glass of alcohol in the previous calendar year reached a maximum of 837.9 percent, a level that increased to 883.9 percent in 1996. This level is in line with the NIAAA report. The states that have posted a higher level of alcohol consumption (904 to 879.9 percent) in their annual report year were those that published their own alcohol consumption statistics, whereas these states had published information on their own alcohol consumption numbers.
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 NHTSAs 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 Administrations (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 driverOr A nonmotorist (usually a pedestrian) had a measurable or estimated [italics added]BloodAlcohol 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 indicateon the police accident report that there is evidence of alcohol present. The code does notnecessarily mean that a driver or nonoccupant was tested for alcohol.(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005)Without further explanation of NHTSAs 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 NHSTAs 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 transportationsector deaths and 99 percent of all transportation-related injuries within the United Statesas well as the leading cause of death for people ages 4 through 33. In 2002, an estimated42,850 people died on the nations 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