Are there too many "d" 's in MADD?

The problem they are focused on is the societal problem of people who drink beyond the legal limit and get behind the wheel of a car.

That seems like a very worthy cause to me if you look at the statistics.

“A special offense related to drinking is alcohol-impaired driving of motor vehicles and the resulting high rate of accidents, with fatalities, personal injuries, and property damage. For example, in 2002 alcohol was involved in about one-third of the more than 40,000 annual road traffic fatalities in the United States, in possibly 500,000 injuries to persons, and in more than $1 billion worth…” Source

It’s possible to drink responsibly. The mothers want people to do that, not quit drinking all together. Are you really comparing alcohol to cocaine? Really?
There are groups for alcoholic abstinence, but that is not MADD’s plight.

When you say to lay the axe to the root of the tree, I’m not certain exactly what you mean by that.

Outlawing alcohol has already been tried and failed as attested to by the repeal of Prohibition.

But I certainly support stiffer penalties for drunk drivers rather than the customary slap onthe wrist which has prevailed for too long in the court system.

There have been far too many times where a drunk driver has caused avoidable deaths and when finally brought to trial, it comes out that he had mulriple previous DUIs with very little consequences imposed.

I think that the first time someone is convicted of DUI, he should be required to have an ignition lock system operated by breath analysis installed on his car in addition to whatever other sanctions are opposed.

EDIT. imposed

Dang iPhone

@Likeradar I am making the comparison. Is not alcohol a drug?

@Buttonstc I believe Prohibition was working, but too many politicians liked to drink.

Thank you all – for the quick answers.

It is entirely possible to drink responsibly, and entirely impossible to drive under the influence responsibly.

Can you tell us more about why you think alcohol is bad outside of the context of drunk driving?

Besides medicinal purposes (e.g. cough syrup), has any good come from drinking it? I abstain from it and will not allow it in my house because of its association. Blanket statement: it perverts judgment leading to promiscuity, infidelity, abusive behavior, drunk driving, loss of job, divorce, brawls, and other drugs.

If you drink (I have friends and relatives that do), I don’t have a problem with you. I just believe that drinking is harmful.

We might say, “drinking in excess is harmful, but not in moderation”, but does the majority of America practice ‘moderation’? Americans drink to get drunk.

One alcoholic beverage impairs judgment. Being truly responsible means having sound judgment. Therefore it is impossible to drink responsibly. It is possible to be less irresponsible, but it is very, very difficult due to the impairing nature of alcohol. I think this question makes a valid point about our society’s conflicted attitude about alcohol.

@valdasta: Have you never heard of the prohibition era? That’s why they’re not against outlawing drinking, because it doesn’t work!

Besides, I could argue that a lot of good things come out of drinking alcohol in moderation. For one, resveratrol found in red wine has been shown to have positive health effects. For another, having lowered inhibitions is not always a bad thing. People who are naturally warm and loving become more so, they give more hugs, they tell people how much they mean to them. Surely you’ve been around or heard of a “happy drunk”. Do you know where the drug ecstasy came from? It was developed (and used for many years) by therapists to help their patients open up about their feelings and be more loving with their family members.

Furthermore, the bible says that Jesus drank alcohol, and even turned water into wine for thousands to drink, so if you believe in Jesus and the bible, how can alcohol be wrong?

@La_chica_gomela is correct about potential health benefits of drinking alcohol. I will go one step further and say that moderate consumption of all kinds of alcohol (not just red wine!) has been associated with longer life. From a large research study looking at longevity in a population over 90 years of age:

Results: of the 8,644 women and 4,980 men with complete information on the variables of interest and potential confounders, 6,930 women and 4,456 men had died (median age, 87 years). Both men and women who drank alcohol had decreased mortality compared with non-drinkers. Those who drank two or more drinks per day had a 15% reduced risk of death. The reduced risk was not limited to one type of alcohol. Stable drinkers (those who reported drinking both at baseline and follow-up) had a significantly decreased risk of death compared with stable non-drinkers. Those who started drinking at follow-up also had a significantly lower risk. Women who quit drinking were at increased risk of death.

Conclusion: in elderly men and women, moderate alcohol intake exhibits a beneficial effect on mortality. Those who quit may do so for health reasons that affect mortality.

@gussnarp: Under your definition, going to sleep is irresponsible.

@nikipedia – thanks for including the brief “Conclusion” line in your quote. You might note that it does not really well support your argument that drinking is associated with longer life, and certainly does not support the argument that alcohol consumption LEADS to a longer life. The second sentence in particular is the key: “Those who quit may do so for health reasons that affect mortality”. In other words, the possibility remains that those who quit drinking in the study did so for existing health reasons and that those health reasons, not quitting drinking, led to their deaths.

@La_chica_gomela Not at all. The overwhelming majority of people who are asleep are immobile and are not making any kinds of judgments. Their judgment is not impaired because they are not using it. Meanwhile, drunk people are on their feet, moving around, driving cars, and making decisions with impaired judgment.

@gussnarp: Sorry to be picky, but my claim that alcohol is associated with longer life is not undermined. This kind of language is carefully selected because it is so difficult to prove that anything is a causal factor in anything else. In fact, I would be surprised to find a single contemporary, peer-reviewed, scientific paper that says “X proves Y.” The most we can hope to do is suggest that X may contribute to Y.

So regardless of the cause, alcohol use remains associated with longer life.

I also want to point out that alcohol use being associated with longer life is a separate issue from that of discontinuing use and increased risk of mortality. Alcohol could be the causal factor in one case, in both, or in neither, but even showing that alcohol is not a causal factor in increased mortality would not diminish the possibility that it is a causal factor in longevity.

The real power in a study like the one I linked is its sheer size. As your sample size gets larger, it becomes less likely that an unrelated variable is causing your effect. Of course, I would never argue that I have given you conclusive proof that alcohol leads to longevity—just that this study suggests that alcohol may contribute to longevity.

@valdasta So essentially, you have a problem with alcohol. And that’s fine, you’re entitled to abstain. But it seems like this question should really be “Why doesn’t MADD follow my views?”

@nikipedia Your are technically correct, and I considered re-wording my response, but it still seems that you are attempting to imply causation, even if you used the correct language. But there is still a flaw with the study (that I should have made clearer in my earlier post), namely that it is aimed at a very narrow slice of the population – people who have already lived a very long time (median age 74 years) thereby leaving out people who have already died early due to alcohol related (or other) causes. It does not in fact associate alcohol consumption with longevity, only with continued longevity of those who have already made it to a considerable age.

@gussnarp: What you wrote was, “Being truly responsible means having sound judgment.” then you wrote about somnambulists “Their judgment is not impaired because they are not using it.” Clearly someone’s judgment is at its most impaired level if they’re not using any judgment at all.

This whole thread seems more like an attack on people who choose to drink rather than a serious question of any sorts. For that, I say shame on you OP. There is nothing morally wrong with the consumption of alcohol, there are plenty of ways to go about in a responsible manner, such as knowing your limit and choosing not to cross it, having a designated driver, and so on.

I request that you don’t spam fluther in the future with attacks on other ways of life that clash with yours.

@La_chica_gomela You are making huge leaps here. You may have meant to talk about sleepwalkers (somnambulists), but neither you nor I mentioned them. You suggested that going to sleep is irresponsible according to my argument, to which I answered that the vast majority of sleepers are immobile and therefore not using any judgment, which clearly indicates that I was not talking about sleepwalkers. My statement should further imply that it is the fact that the sleeper is not engaging in any activity at all that means they are not using judgment and that it is therefore not impaired. Sleepwalkers are a separate issue, and a medical one that has nothing to do with a conscious decision to impair ones judgment. Such people certainly cannot choose not to sleep, since doing so for long periods would also lead to impaired judgment.

@valdasta: It’s fairly well apparent that prohibition doesn’t work—it just creates a thriving black market for whatever’s prohibited.

Further, if you don’t want to drink, and you don’t want to have alcohol products in your house, that’s your prerogative, but you don’t get to dictate to Mothers Against Driving Drunk—who have a fairly well-delineated purpose, and have done a lot of good towards reaching their goals—what they must believe.

@Anon_Jihad I disagree with you. Valdosta may have had an agenda when asking the question, but it is still an interesting question to discuss. One must be drunk to drive drunk, and a drunk cannot make a good decision, so should MADD address drunkenness and not just drunk driving? I think that in fact, to some extent, they do. I could be wrong but I believe they have taken issue with advertisements for alcoholic beverages in the past, for example.

@gussnarp: So, you’re admitting that (under your definition) sleeping and sleepwalking are examples of “impaired judgment” but it’s basically a necessary evil.

@La_chica_gomela No, I’m not. You are continually putting words in my mouth. Sleeping is not impaired judgment, it is a natural state of inactivity. While a handful of people exhibit activity while sleeping, the odds of anyone doing anything while asleep are very slim. Somnambulists are a special class, and I suppose you could call their judgment impaired, it is quite a different thing to impair ones judgment while out and about and to have a medical condition that impairs ones judgment.

“it is quite a different thing to impair ones judgment while out and about and to have a medical condition that impairs ones judgment.”

So, obviously if anyone has any medical condition, they are physically unable to leave their house, and that nullifies the whole situation. Of course.

@La_chica_gomela I don’t think that follows.

I think the idea that it is possible to drink responsibly depends solely on the person. For many many people this is not a possibility and we should not assume that it is one.

I am a non-drinker myself and support the idea of changing societal ideas about alcohol use. As a non-drinker it becomes more apparent how obsessed the American country is with consuming alcohol and thus it becomes apparent how unhealthy this obsession can be. When me and my husband quit drinking we lost nearly all of our friends because they simply couldn’t think of anything to do with us besides drink, of course we could but it wasn’t sitting right with them.

I do see however how saying “no drinking”, especially for adults, is causing problems. It’s not a logical ‘first step’ at dealing with the alcohol obsession. People get way too defensive. Especially those who do not see alcohol as a problem. We must consider that even though it is not a problem for you or your family, as a nation we do have an inordinate amount of alcohol-related problems including drinking and driving which I do not believe has been adequately addressed.

@Likeradar I do not disagree with MADD (they are doing more than I am in the cause agianst drunk drivers)...I guess I should have phrased the question better. However, it is good to hear what people have to say; I am glad to have my ideas challenged.

@La_chica_gomela I don’t believe that Jesus drank or made alcohol. “Wine” can refer to both fermented and non-fermented grape juice.

@valdasta: Are you kidding? No one drank grape juice back then! I’ll have to ask an instructor about the biblical Greek meaning of whatever word they used for “wine” but I have honestly never heard that before, and from the knowledge of have about the middle East during the time of Christ, it makes absolutely no sense.

@gussnarp So you’re saying it’s impossible to make a good decision when you’re drunk? It impairs your ability sure, but it doesn’t give you any new opportunities to fudge up.

@RedPowerLady – Your words are so true. It is equally if not even more pervasive in Australia as it was when I lived in USA. Virtually all events from a family gathering to a sports final have to include alcohol. Drunkeness is more sociably acceptable than smoking a cigarette.

And to respond to the question above, alcohol is indeed a drug, one of the most addictive and destructive.

@rooeytoo Thank you and thanks also for adding info about Australia, i’ve never been myself.

The mothers are not against drinking. They are against driving after drinking.
The Acronym is fine.

@Anon_Jihad I’m not saying it’s impossible for any decision you make when drunk to be a good one, but I am saying that it is impossible for you to judge the quality of your decisions when drunk. You can make what turns out to be a good decision, but your decision making process is damaged, and you can’t be a good judge as to your own actions. Not sure what you mean by new opportunities to fudge up. Being drunk gives you lots of opportunities to fudge up.

alcohol in itself isn’t the problem that they’re against. it’s the specific decision to drive while drunk. just drinking alcohol doesn’t kill their kids, it’s drinking and then getting into a car. i don’t think it’s that questionable really.

There is nothing wrong with the acronym. It’s the drinking and driving that kills. BTW, about 2 years ago, the police here, on Old Year’s Night, stopped every single car travelling between Port of Spain and San Fernando along the Solomon Hochoy Highway. Any driver who could not complete simple tests for drunkenness was made to park by the roadside and sleep it off. A newspaper journalist, reporting on the event, said that there were about a thousand cars parked. There were no casualties that night – at least on the Solomon Hochoy Highway.