1115.org

(Posted by Jamie)

When I was in high school I was the president of my school’s Students Against Drunk Driving chapter, for three years. I also traveled across the state of Pennsylvania performing in high school assemblies funded by Mothers Against Drunk Driving to raise awareness about the dangers of drunk driving. During this time I was selected to serve as a delegate representing Western Pennsylvania at a national MADD convention in Washington D.C. and I appeared in a television PSA for the cause. It is safe to say that drunk driving is something I have always felt strongly about.

Since moving to New York the issue of drunk driving has, blissfully, fallen off my radar. It just isn’t a daily issue for me the way it was in high school and college. Provided the cabbies are sober I generally consider myself in good shape. But across the country nearly 17,500 people die in drunk driving related crashes annually (Most recent statistics available for 2001).

I find drunk driving the single most selfish crime there is. Never have I heard a more ridiculous rationalization than “I’m ok” from someone who can barely stand straight and (thankfully) often has trouble finding their own keys. For the most part in other violent crimes the intentions of the perpetrator are clear but drunk drivers spend a lot of time convincing themselves and those around them that the law is the problem.

Now, a national campaign called MADDatGM, complete with a slimy lobbyist, is in place to attack MADD and organize a boycott against General Motors, a lead funder of MADD. Jeffrey McCracken’s piece does a fantastic job of clearly relating the facts, but his deadpan understates the absurdity of the situation. The denial and selfishness that drunk drivers have exhibited for years is now a “legitimate” movement.

For me, the crux of the issue is this: drink yourself silly, imbibe, revel, indulge, but don’t get behind the wheel. The minute you do you take your own life and that of your passengers’, the other drivers on the road, their passengers and the pedestrians you will encounter into your hands. It’s really that simple. A situation in which someone is injured or killed due to a drunk driver is not a drunk driving accident, it is a crash – it ceases to be an “accident” when an impaired person gets behing the wheel – it becomes a choice.

Through McCracken’s piece I learned that MADDatGM claims MADD has become:

“A prohibisionist group that wants to criminalize all drinking.”

The article then accurately states MADD’s three prong mission but leaves out an important part of the mission statement which reads:

“MADD is not a crusade against alcohol consumption - MADD’s mission is to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime, and prevent underage drinking.”

A bar owner in Michigan who is not formally associated with MADDatGM states:

“MADD has successfully changed the way people dine. They forced people in groups to have one person who can’t drink at all, not even one glass of wine. That’s just wrong. Accidents are caused by hard-core alcoholics, people who are really drunk but keep getting on the road.”

His statement is not bore out by the evidence on two levels. First of all, social drinkers can and do cause crashes. And secondly – MADD’s legal efforts do not promote zero tolerance for the over 21 set. MADD has long supported legislation that has finally lowered the legal Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) in all 50 states to .08. To put that in context: McCracken’s article and MADD’s website state:

“A 170-pound man can have four to five drinks in an hour on an empty stomach before reaching a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level. A 137-pound woman would reach 0.08 after approximately three drinks in an hour on an empty stomach.”

That’s hardly “not even one glass of wine.” But it is true that the organization’s rhetoric does support abstinence by the driver. And I’m glad it does. Truth be told, I’m a hair over 137lbs and after 3 drinks in one hour on an empty stomach, you won’t find me behind a wheel – you’ll find me on the very dirty floor of a bar. I was brought up with the rhetoric that impairment begins with the first drink and I believe it: I feel the first glass of chardonnay right behind my knees. I believe that everything happens on a continuum and while one person may be “fine” after one drink and someone else after two, there’s really no way to tell for sure. It seems a fair assumption to me, if not fact, that no one is better off after a few drinks and nearly all of us are much worse. It is presumptuous and selfish to think, in an inebriated state, you can make a safe and accurate decision about your ability to drive. A situation in which someone is injured or killed due to a drunk driver is not a drunk driving accident, it is a crash – it ceases to be an “accident” when an impaired person gets behind the wheel – it becomes a choice.

When I was in high school people always questioned my motivations. Did I know someone who was killed? Was I a victim? At the time the answer was no. A distant cousin had been killed but I didn’t know him, and that really had little to do with my passion for the cause. To me it was a clear cut issue of right and wrong and it is to this day. However, when I was in college a friend died in a single car crash on his way home from a bar. His parents refused an autopsy. The likelihood is he was drunk, impaired, inebriated, call it what you will, he is dead and his death was preventable. The notion that anyone is spending time and money to counter MADD’s mission would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive.

*Thanks to Matt Tobey for the tip.