Why MADD doesn't really have any intention of stopping drunk driving

Well, for starters, how about $46,959,181? That's the amount that MADD paid out in total salaries and benefits during fiscal years 2002-2004 according to a review of their tax filings by getmadd.com. If you were receiving big fat paychecks in exchange for exploiting the pain and suffering of the victims of drunk driving, would you want to put a stop to all that income? Not likely if you were making over $200,000 per year, which was the fantastic salary pulled down by at least one MADD executive during several reported years.

MADD no longer puts corporate tax returns on their website according to the report. Huh? Corporate return? Do you mean MADD is a corporation? Yep. Just like GM, AIG, and Brown-Forman (maker of Jack Daniels). All of these corporations benefit financially from drunk driving and would earn less if drunk driving were eliminated. So one really has to ask the question, how hard would it be to eliminate drunk driving? As it turns out, not very.

Some time ago, a little device was developed that would be attached to the ignition of a car. In order to start the car, you would have to blow into the device. If you were drunk, the car wouldn't start, but if you were sober, it would operate normally. Ingenious huh? So why don't we put one on every new car sold in America? Simple. That would affect the paychecks of all the people who profit from drunk driving, and that's one heck of a lot of people.

Take me for example. Lots of folks hire me to defend them on DUI charges, and they have to pay me good money for that service. That's simple enough, but what about General Motors? How do they profit from DUI? That's actually pretty simple too. What do you think happens when someone wrecks their car in a DUI? They go out and buy a new one in accordance with the terms of their insurance. This happens every day due to the magic of actuarial science.

But aren't the insurance companies losing money from DUI because they have to pay out claims? No, they actually make even more. Huh? The insurance companies bring in more premiums to cover the cost of damages caused by DWI. More premiums means more profit. Obviously the alcohol and restaurant industries profit from a system that allows and encourages people to have a few drinks with dinner and drive home. Even MADD isn't really looking to prevent drunk driving (and give up their big fat salaries) - just to punish drunk drivers after the crime has already been committed and it is too late to stop them.

Don't believe me? Try this. Call MADD headquarters and explain that you sometimes like to enjoy a glass of wine or two with dinner or a couple of beers at the ballgame. Then ask them if they would foot the bill for an ignition interlock for your car. The answer will be no. How do I know? I tried it. I'd love to have a car that couldn't be driven under the influence. And of course I've never intentionally driven under the influence, but nobody ever plans to drive under the influence. When you drink, your judgment is reduced and your inhibitions are lowered, so how are you supposed to be able to tell whether you are under the influence or not?

MADD knows that punishing drunk drivers will only have a marginal effect on drunk driving without eliminating their paychecks. In a recent report, MADD claimed to have "partnered with leaders in the traffic safety and auto industries to further explore the possibilities of eliminating drunk driving through... advanced vehicle technologies" such as "Advanced breath testing... for alcohol in the vehicle" Hmm. Sounds like a pretty cozy partnership. It's worth noting that these technologies are proclaimed as a panacea by MADD when they get legislation passed requiring ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers. Six states passed such laws to kick off 2009. But don't count on MADD getting these devices installed in every new car any time soon. "It's amazingly inconvenient," according to David Malham, of the Illinois chapter of MADD. As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."