 |
| Lightspring |
MADD is upset. No big deal there. MADD is always upset and rightfully so, I say. Who out there disputes its goals? Is MADD opposed to drinking? Nope. How about getting drunk? Not even that although, nowadays, anyone condoning that risks censure.
MADD is a formidable force, deriving its energy from intelligence well-nigh irrefutable; i.e., people who drink too much must not drive and if they do and are caught, must be punished—not wrist-slapped, but punished: outrageous fines, jail sentences, suspension of driver’s license for a long time, maybe forever. Bravo MADD. Onward. Drunk drivers, MADD says, are a menace; the sooner we get them off the streets, the safer the streets will be for all of us.
In the past, MADD’s voice has been tempered with reason, rising above the clamorous babel of neo-prohibitionist fanatics. Not the case, of late. Recent actions would lead one to conclude that MADD has taken leave of its senses. Some members have begun to sound like the superpatriots I read about who aim to contravene constitutional guarantees to accommodate their programs.
I refer, of course, to recent developments—given plenty of play in the press—regarding sobriety checkpoints. I have no quarrel with MADD or any other organization that opposes drunk driving. What I do find repugnant are procedures that violate an individual’s rights guaranteed under the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment that “protects the people against unreasonable search and seizure.”
Roadblocks, checkpoints—whatever—that indiscriminately stop anyone in a motor vehicle for questioning not only ignore probable cause (another guarantee under the Fourth Amendment that, by the way, insists on “warrants supported by oath”), but call to mind similar strategies employed in police states.
Further, checkpoints don’t work. Inasmuch as cops can’t eliminate speeding (scofflaws armed with radar detectors are everywhere), cop-manned checkpoints—erected randomly outside taverns and restaurants or positioned on roads leading from regions where, supposedly, a lot of drinking goes on—won’t put a stop to drunk driving; can’t even hope to curtail it.
Presume for the moment they’re perfectly legal. Deal now with the realities of enforcement. How many checkpoints will you need? Where are you going to position them (outside of Chez Panisse, on every exit road from Bourbon Street, at Morton’s, wedding receptions, neighborhood bars)? How many cops will you need; and, of those needed, what happens to the deployment of the rest where they are really needed? Who’s going to pay for all of this? You? Me? MADD?
What next? SWAT teams storming bars, guns drawn, sniffing breaths, eyeballing tabs (“Hey, check this one out, Harry, smells like he’s been drinking for days.”), and then confiscating the car keys of customers they assume are too drunk to drive? Cops barricading the driveways of homes hosting cocktail parties?
Our politicians squawk out of both sides of their mouths (nothing really new there come to think of it). They condemn inebriation, yet sponsor bills to raise funds for pet projects through aptly labeled “sintaxes.”
MADD? Likewise hypocritical. Its challenge is to educate and advise; and, with an energy that reinforces its convictions, to make sure the media cover its activities. That’s it. Today, however, it’s become an arm of the law; engaging in malpractices that ignore constitutional guarantees.
In much the same way televangelists rely on base sensationalism to whip followers into a fund-raising frenzy, so has MADD allowed its emotions to trump its common sense, hoping, therefore, to drum up support for its cause. No dice. It has lost mine.
