22 April 2008

MADD: Vestigial idiocy from the Women's Christian Temperance Union

Not too long ago my wife received a magazine subscription notice for one of her favorite mags.  The publisher had partnered with Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the subscription drive to which MADD would get a share of the subscription price.

Then about a week ago my wife received a phone call about the notice, to which she informed the caller that I refused to give money to any organization that supported MADD.  The lady was shocked, and my wife explained why I feel a formerly decent organization like MADD should not receive any assistance whatsoever and organizations that naively support it should be educated.

It's an established fact that MADD is more interested in the total prohibition of alcohol than simply bringing to light the problem of drunk driving (and reasonable efforts to cease it), rather than the warm-and-fuzzy "MADD" name would suggest:
"MADD generally attempts to mask its radical, neo-prohibitionist agenda in the veneer of sound science and sober statistics."Charles V. Pena, former MADD official. (1)

And even after the proven absolute failure of Prohibition, MADD and its cohorts still push the neo-prohibitionist agenda; every Presidential Election has a registered Prohibition party campaigning with a candidate.  Clearly, these people have never heard George Santayana's words, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

National Prohibition not only failed to prevent the consumption of alcohol, but led to the extensive production of dangerous unregulated and untaxed alcohol, the development of organized crime, increased violence, and massive political corruption. Although Prohibition was repealed in 1933, there are still hundreds of dry counties across the United States today. Amazingly, some people today insist that Prohibition was a success! (2)

Truly, alcohol, in moderate consumption, is no more responsible for killing than the spoon is responsible for making Rosie O'Donnell fat.  The Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine have both published articles verifying health benefits of moderate consumption:

Moderate alcohol consumption, up to 2 drinks per day, was significantly protective for ischemic stroke after adjustment for cardiac disease, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, body mass index, and education (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.67). This protective effect of alcohol consumption was detected in both younger and older groups, in men and women, and in whites, blacks, and Hispanics. In a quadratic model of stroke risk, increased risk of ischemic stroke was statistically significant among those consuming 7 or more drinks per day (OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.05-8.29).

Clearly, the proof is in the pudding...er, beer.  Fanaticism rarely produces positive results.



1.  Mothers Against Drunk Driving: A Crash Course in MADD
2.  Temperance Movement Groups and Leaders in the U.S., by David J. Hanson, Ph. D.
Blogged with the Flock Browser


Gregory said...

Yikes! Prohibition a success? Puhhhh-leeeez!

Well, if you measure success in the fact that my family made a killing supplying illegal alcohol to Montgomery county Maryland, I guess that's success...well, until the feds stepped in...

Great post!

OSBC said...

Thanks bud!

Yeah, too bad Montgomery rectified their situation by having a state-run type system in their county. All alcohol in and out of the county goes through the distributor known as the Montgomery County government.

No conflict of interest there...