| Mothers Against Drunk Driving |
Article Index for Mothers Against |
Website Links For Mothers Against Drunk Driving |
Information AboutMothers Against Drunk Driving |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING | |
| alcohol | |
| drunk driving | |
| non-profit organizations | |
|
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or '''MADD''', is a Non-profit Organization in the United States and other countries. In the 1980s , MADD had success in changing public attitudes and laws regarding Driving Under The Influence . While MADD still regards itself as a Victims' Rights organization, critics contend that it has shifted its original goals from preventing drunk driving fatalities to preventing any drinking and driving. Even more controversially, MADD has moved to take positions on other alcohol-related issues with no clear link to drunk driving. Some, including the group's founder, call the current organization Neo-prohibitionist . Common criticisms of the organization deem it as neo-prohibitionist, Ageist , and in favor of the creation of a Nanny State — all under the pretense of preventing Death s due to drunk driving. AGENDA Generally the group favors:
A full list of MADD's positions is available online. HISTORY it makes sense to limit consumption. It can also be argued that the government does not own the citizens; that in a free country, the citizens would decide what to eat and drink, and that it is not the fault of the discrimination victims that the government imposes laws that penalize non-use of motor vehicles (such as plowing snow off streets onto sidewalks, forcing developers to add parking lots and pass the cost on to tenants who don't even have cars, building roads without sidewalks and building busy intersections without crosswalk lights). Outvoted discrimination victims cannot be blamed, for example, if many other people have a love affair with their automobiles. MADD's mission dyn/content/article/2005/08/14/AR2005081400903.html] their stories. Some states in the United States, such as Massachusetts, permit victims of all crimes, including drunk driving accidents, to give " Victim Impact Statement s" prior to sentencing so that judges and prosecutors can consider the impact on victims in deciding on an appropriate sentence to recommend or impose. The presentations are often emotional, detailed, and graphic, and focus on the tragic negative consequences of DWI and alcohol-related crashes. However, a New Mexico study suggested that the VIPs' confrontational approaches are ineffective in the treatment of alcohol problems, and that the use of VIPs actually increased DWI recidivism in that state.[http://casaa.unm.edu/posters/a%20randomized%20trial%20of%20victim%20impact%20panels%20dwi%20deterrence%20effectiveness.pdf]. Some studies have shown that permitting victims to make statements and to give testimony is psychologically beneficial to them and aids in their recovery and in their satisfaction with the criminal justice system. [http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C53.htm] Financial mismanagement allegations In 1994, ''Money'' magazine reported that telemarketers raised over $38 million for MADD, keeping nearly half of it in fees. This relationship no longer exists. Overall, MADD reports that it spends 17% of its budget on fundraising, which is below average for an advocacy organization that is heavily dependent on many individual contributions. However, the American Institute Of Philanthropy and others note that MADD categorizes much of its fundraising expenses as "educational expenses." The American Institute of Philanthropy has given MADD poor grades for its high bureaucratic and fundraising costs (MADD Money. Investigative report, K5 News, Seattle, WA. See In December 2001, ''[http://www.worth.com Worth '' magazine listed MADD as one of its "100 best charities". However, MADD currently has the lowest (poorest) evaluation score among its peer charities, according to Charity Navigator .It has the highest proportion of funds going to expenses and the lowest proportion of funds being spent on actual programs. Allegations of avarice Non-profit organizations typically permit their chapters to keep most of the money they raise. For example, Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) chapters get to keep 90% of all funds they raise. In contrast, MADD's corporate office claims immediate ownership of all money raised by all its chapters. Thus, after raising $129,000 locally and turning it all over as MADD demands, the Las Vegas chapter received a check from the national office for $1.29 as its share. MADD's "focus is on greed," said the chapter President, who reported "I've never seen such bloodsuckers!" (MADD Money. Investigative report, K5 News, Seattle, WA. See [http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html]). Criticisms of the motives of MADD's critics In some instances, critics of MADD have received funding from restaurant chains, beer manufacturers and distributors, and other Front Groups from or connected to the liquor industry. For example, Corporate Lobbyist Rick Berman and various front groups under his control have attacked MADD as a "prohibitionist" organization. {Link without Title} . However, this does not invalidate their criticisms. MADD sometimes imputes ulterior and sinister motives to its critics. For example, it has charged that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught.” Because some law enforcement organizations believe that roving patrols are more effective in apprehending impaired drivers and are a more efficient use of limited resources, opposition to such laws may be based on legitimate public policy concerns. Candy Lightner's departure Lightner left MADD in the 1980s , and has since gone on to criticize the group as " Neo-prohibitionist ." Lightner stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving" (Bresnahan, S. MADD struggles to remain relevant. ''Washington Times'', August 6, 2002; Dresty, John. Neo-prohibition. ''The Chronicle'', May 12, 2005). IN POPULAR CULTURE
SOURCE
EXTERNAL LINKS Other Viewpoints
|
|
|