Please do not comment directly to this post unless you are Gen X or older (born 1980 or before). See this post, the rules, and the sidebar for details. Thank you for your submission, Independent-Bat9545.
Prior to 1980, the year of formation of MADD, not as many people thought of drunk driving as entirely preventable, it was just another risk of life. MADD shifted public discourse and put the attention on the victim and that the event was entirely preventable and that getting into a car under the influence is a conscious choice that someone makes.
As a result of MADD the BAC levels were lowered. You used to have to be completely hammered before you were cited (with a ticket, not arrested) for DUI. Before MADD people would get cited 10, 20, 30 times for drunk driving and wouldn’t change. MADD advocacacy resulted in stringent mandatory consequences. In my state your third DUI is a felony with mandatory prison time.
With my advancing age I am now seeing the undoing of MADD legislation. In many jurisdictions, drunks are able to get around mandatory consequences through deals with prosecutors for deferred prosecution, sealed records, dropped charges. There are now cases of the police simply calling a relative to “pick up” the drunk so that they don’t take the person to jail or arrest them. Even in this thread you will see people focusing on the drunk as a victim of mean old vindictive laws rather than than thinking about the 13,000 human beings killed each year in the United States as the result of this dangerous and lethal behavior. On a humorous note, in the 1980s we refered to the drunks complaining about the laws as DAMM–drunk drivers against mad mothers.
There was no consensus, but no politician wanted to fight against angry mothers. And the mothers had a point really, so no one really wanted to argue “for” drunk driving. The only arguments that got traction were that they were setting the blood-alcohol limits too low. That still might debatable, but with Uber and Lyft these days, most people have plenty of options and no excuses for driving drunk.
One joke that some college students at the time was to form a group called DAMM – Drinkers Against Mad Mothers. Only a joke of course. I’m glad MADD did what they did. It worked, and that’s what’s important.
The goal of reducing drunk driving was a good one. It raised awareness of the problem. But, they took it too far at times. I lived in Portland, Or and there was a great pub crawl once a year to raise money for the Portland Opera or the like. They had busses to take you between the bars and it was lots of fun. But, because some people might drive home drunk, MADD protested it and got it killed.
Comments
Please do not comment directly to this post unless you are Gen X or older (born 1980 or before). See this post, the rules, and the sidebar for details. Thank you for your submission, Independent-Bat9545.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Honestly everyone thought it would slow down dui s which it did.
But what it really did is criminalize a bunch of 18-20 year olds who could join the army and kill people but can’t buy beer.
Prior to 1980, the year of formation of MADD, not as many people thought of drunk driving as entirely preventable, it was just another risk of life. MADD shifted public discourse and put the attention on the victim and that the event was entirely preventable and that getting into a car under the influence is a conscious choice that someone makes.
As a result of MADD the BAC levels were lowered. You used to have to be completely hammered before you were cited (with a ticket, not arrested) for DUI. Before MADD people would get cited 10, 20, 30 times for drunk driving and wouldn’t change. MADD advocacacy resulted in stringent mandatory consequences. In my state your third DUI is a felony with mandatory prison time.
With my advancing age I am now seeing the undoing of MADD legislation. In many jurisdictions, drunks are able to get around mandatory consequences through deals with prosecutors for deferred prosecution, sealed records, dropped charges. There are now cases of the police simply calling a relative to “pick up” the drunk so that they don’t take the person to jail or arrest them. Even in this thread you will see people focusing on the drunk as a victim of mean old vindictive laws rather than than thinking about the 13,000 human beings killed each year in the United States as the result of this dangerous and lethal behavior. On a humorous note, in the 1980s we refered to the drunks complaining about the laws as DAMM–drunk drivers against mad mothers.
There was no consensus, but no politician wanted to fight against angry mothers. And the mothers had a point really, so no one really wanted to argue “for” drunk driving. The only arguments that got traction were that they were setting the blood-alcohol limits too low. That still might debatable, but with Uber and Lyft these days, most people have plenty of options and no excuses for driving drunk.
One joke that some college students at the time was to form a group called DAMM – Drinkers Against Mad Mothers. Only a joke of course. I’m glad MADD did what they did. It worked, and that’s what’s important.
As a person who lost someone due to an extremely intoxicated bitch deciding to get on the road, I never had issues with them.
It was heartbreaking hearing all the stories. My bff was murdered by a drunk driver almost 50 years ago.
The goal of reducing drunk driving was a good one. It raised awareness of the problem. But, they took it too far at times. I lived in Portland, Or and there was a great pub crawl once a year to raise money for the Portland Opera or the like. They had busses to take you between the bars and it was lots of fun. But, because some people might drive home drunk, MADD protested it and got it killed.