TheAgitator.com
The New Prohibition, Ct’d
Thursday, April 3rd, 2003Reader Jack F. doesn’t believe me when I say that drunk driving fatality statistics are inflated by agenda-driven organizations, and that the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption save far more lives (about 80,000 per year) than are lost to drunk drivers.
Jack F. probably doesn’t want to hear this, but even the American Heart Association now recommends moderate daily consumption (one drink per day for women, two for men) as part of its heart-friendly diet.
But Jack F. ain’t buyin’ it. He regularly emails me with examples of the devastation he allees are wrought by alcohol consumption.
To prove the error of my ways, Jack F. today sent me a link to a newsletter called the Health Reformer, which I guess is some sort of faith-based guide to healthy, sin-free living.
Specifically, Jack F. tells me to check out this article, a piece of writing remarkable in that it manages to cram so much junk science and manipulated data into so small a space.
I barely know where to begin.
Note the liberal substitution of “drunk drivers,” “victims of drunk drivers,” and “alcohol-related fatalities,” each phrase employed when it best suits the author’s purpose. Note that the group with the highest percentage of “drunk” drivers who didn’t have previous alcohol problems were those with BACs between .01 and .10 — most of whom aren’t legally (much less actually) drunk. This is also by far the group in which the most accidents occur, so including them in the overall number decidedly skews the “study.” The study also fails to mention that in the overwhelming majority of accidents in which alcohol was deemed the actual cause (and not merely a factor), the mean BAC is about .15.
Also, make note of the source of this study — at the bottom, in feint gray italics — Join Together Online. JTO is a project conceived of and funded by (to the tune of $28 million)….who else might you expect?…..the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
JTO’s president is Ralph Hingson, also a vice president for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Hingson wrote a study a few years ago proclaiming that .08 BAC legal limits could save thousands of lives every year. That study was later thoroughly dismissed by the General Accounting Office.
My favorite part of this particular article is the “editor’s note” at the end. It says:
As you can see, the liquor traffic is doing more damage to Americans than terrorists did on Sept. 11. Let’s target this form of terrorism also!
Ugh.
Yes, alcohol is a danger- when it is ABUSED. So are marijuana, steroids,ephedra, food, water; Heck, just about everything. It is not the use that is a problem, it’s “abuse.”
While I don’t agree with the “sin-free” zealots, I must say I do not use alcohol or other drugs and for me, there is something “unhealthy” about it. I have many reasons for my beliefs. For one thing, I believe alcohol is primarily used by people to “escape” and that many people cannot enjoy themselves without being intoxicated; and there is something wrong with that, obviously.
I am a libertarian, but not a libertine. I believe we are in a moral decline ( based on reason, not faith), and it is important to make conscious rational decisions, not intoxicated ones.
That being said, there is a distinction between “personal” and “political” beliefs. It is not for the government to dictate personal consumption choices.
Also, while it is ridiculous for these funcrushers to attempt to legislate their morality, there is also something wrong with a society that believes there is something wrong with people who DO NOT use intoxicants.
Graham,
You don’t take SOMA, what’s wrong with you?
If someone dies an early death because they failed to drink enough alcohol, it is a result of their choice; if someone dies an early death because they are killed by a drunk driver, it’s not a result of their choice.
But of course, the problem is we’ve got two kinds of drinking here: moderate drinking and excessive drinking. Moderate drinking is not killing people; it’s excessive drinking.
So, blindly tossing around the term “alcohol consumption” to mean both excessive and moderate is probably a bad idea; it’s what MADD does. So, the comparison between drunk driving deaths and health benefits is a bum one. In a certain way it’s like comparing either to Sept. 11th deaths.
Of course, there is the problem of how you curb excessive drinking while ignoring or encouraging moderate drinking….
I ordered the free bumper sticker with the skull & crossbones that says “The Liquor Traffic is Evil.” I’m totally pumped to get it! I’m just totally pumped for sinless health!
By the way, was anyone else aware that drinking caffeine was a sin? I wonder what else I’m doing that I don’t realize is sinful. . . is this promoted by one of those religions where the girls all wear long jean skirts & white Keds everyday and think that shaving your legs is a sin?
I’m so glad I’m Catholic.
Who are these people? Did you see their “mission”?
Our team’s mission:
To hinder the progress of all unhealthy practices common these days.
To raise the fallen.
To shield the weak from social wrongs.
There is so much creepiness in those statements, I just don’t know where to begin.
I like the term “liquor traffic” too. Now, every time I open that bottle of Jack Daniel’s – I’ll revel in my subversive “trafficing” actions.
Obviously driving while drunk is a bad thing. I really don’t think we need, anymore activist groups to remind us that drunk drivers are evil people who cause problems. I believe that drunk driving is already a crime in all 50 states, and that most states severely punish at least the repeat offenders. Obviously if you kill someone, you do hard time.
I work with addicts all the time. Some people are not capable of using alcohol in a responsible way. Prohibition is not the answer. When an alcoholic is deprived of alcohol and does not deal with the underlying problems of his addiction, he will learn a new addiction even if it is riskier. He may move onto a drug addiction, overeating, gambling, or sexual addiction.
The point I am making is, MADD, when it was founded provided a necessary service to our society. Amazingly enough people were not aware that drunk driving was a huge problem. Lawmakers were ignoring it. Judges were too lenient. Kids and adults alike felt they were “better drivers” after a few drinks. I think we are past all that now. MADD, and other organizations like it, seem to have morphed into ultra-moralistic organizations or are desperately trying to find new ways to justify their existence. They are no longer against Drunk Driving, they are against alcohol all together.
I’m a Christian, and a recovering addict myself. I’m sure many of my views would be termed as “fundamentalist” by some of your readers. But I know that Jesus drank alcohol, provided alcohol for people to drink, and never said one word condemning it. Alcohol, by itself, is not sinful. It is when you allow any substance or activity to control your life that sin enters the picture.
It frustrates me that organizations like MADD use junk science and manipulated data and over-emotional pleas to get their point across. No politician is going to stand up against Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The media seems to leave them alone as well.
I applaud Mr. Balko for speaking up.
http://www.getMADD.com is a new webpage devoted to getting to the TRUTH about alcohol, MADD and government statistics. No ads, No solicitation. No pop-ups. Just researched information. Hope you can visit soon.
getMADD
MADD has gone a tad over board but you can’t tell me that wasn’t expected? I mean, you can’t expect a company that big to just shut up shop after they accomplish what they set out to do. They will not end until people relize that now they do more badd (get it) then good.
Phil
http://www.saveabuddy.com