This group MADD (or as you have referred to them before Mothers Against Drinking), need to be knocked down a peg or two. They keep on saying these things, and never get challenged.

They seem to be one of those special interest groups that have no organized ennemy, so they can go on and say whatever they want with no consequences to themselves whatsoever.

And I'm only an occasional drinker, I just hate to see this crap spewed about with no pushback.

Ok, I'm a bit confused. The gentleman being quoted is a researcher who co-authored a statistics report for MADD, but it doesn't say he works or speaks for them.

His personal opinion seems to be that all drivers in Canada under 21 should be banned from err..drinking hooch somehow. I presume this means not allowed into bars, or at least being caught blowing anything while controlling a vehicle. 21 used to be the median legal age to drink in the 60s-70s, but it's been dropped to 18-19, so this sounds like nostalgia than anything, although its stated purpose is to drop traffic crunches for young drivers.

Did I miss how he's speaking for MADD in this? And much as I defend the freedom of people to indulge in intoxicants so long as they don't hurt people, I still think drinking competitions at parties and shooting up booze are nuts and could do with more awareness education, not to mention alternates.

Drinking makes me pretty.

I think you may have a point about MADD, but how about a little context for that quote, yo? Here it is with reporter's preamble:

"More than 80 per cent of young people aged 16-19 killed in 'pedestrian fatalities,' had also been drinking, he said.

'I was very concerned with the current messages: If you drink, don’t drive. I support that message, but implicit in that is this sense out there that it is all right to get as drunk as you want as long as you are not driving,' he said."

So:

A) He's talking about 16-19 year-old -- 75% of whom are breaking the law simply by drinking. (This is the London Free Press, in Ontario where the drinking age is 19.)

B) He's talking about pedestrian deaths, noting that 80% of them involved alcohol in some way.

As a health professional, he's just speaking the truth: It's dangerous to get stupid drunk. He thinks it's important for people to know that, and for public service messages not to say, hey it's cool getting stupid drunk just as long as you don't drive...

I myself get stupid drunk from time to time, will probably continue to get so until I have kids or something. I certainly don't think it should be illegal to do so, but I have no problem with a health professional telling me that it is dangerous and unhealthy to get stupid drunk. In fact, I would be highly skeptical of a doctor who didn't tell me getting stupid drunk was bad and who thought it was a great idea to drink however much I want.

JKN,

That's why I called it "Mandate Creep". Protecting drunken pedestrians is admirable, but that's not what MADD is supposed to be about.

Several points, disconnected:

1. One can get too drunk to walk safely. I know about one such death. This article highlights how common this is.

2. Barmen already have a code of ethics: they should not get a man inebriated this far. On the other hand, he is paying for the drinks. I've never heard of a barman convicted of criminal negligence.

3. MADD is so influential because thet are sponsored by insurance companies (big $$) and they gets lots of volunteer and technical support from the Police, including the RCMP. In the meantime, anti-pedophile groups pay for photocopies themselves.

4. I never understood this "zero tolerance" thing. Like all medical value, breath ethanol has a normal value, which is not zero. In the low range, many things can cause false positive results using electronic alchohol meters: asthma puffers, cough medication and cigarette smoking are known culprits. Reference below. So, now smokers can't drive either?

http://www.geradts.com/anil/ij/vol_004_no_002/papers/paper005.html