OPINION & EDITORIAL
Mad at MADD
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Madison's annual hip-hop conference falters (April 14, 2003)
- Dear Dave: Post this near your desk (April 17, 2003)
- Politicking destroyed opt-out's proponents (April 14, 2003)
- Don't Cut Historical Society Funds (April 29, 2003)
- Redirecting control (April 23, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Everyone agrees: Let 19-year-olds drink (February 28, 2002)
- Lower drinking age could aid terror war (March 29, 2005)
- Kids' kegs (November 7, 2001)
- Density plan dense, indeed (January 18, 2007)
- Best wishes for Wieben (September 11, 2001)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Thursday, April 18, 2002
We love our mothers but can’t stand Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Those familiar with alcohol issues know that MADD is America’s premier anti-alcohol lobby. Fueled by emotion and suburban riches, MADD is more interested in prohibition than respecting federalism, logic or rights.
Most irksome to us is MADD’s rabid defense of the 21-year-old drinking age. Everyone agrees this absurd law is one of the root causes of UW’s alcohol problem, but MADD has no use for the value of teaching personal responsibility instead of arbitrarily regulating.
Unfortunately, MADD’s reach extends further than the drinking age. In the past week, MADD has been working feverishly to stop Congress from repealing America’s beer tax. As we editorialized last fall, America’s beer tax is horribly regressive; moreover, would it not be safer for society if people drank beer instead of hard liquor.
But MADD has no use for logic — prohibition is a higher priority than personal responsibility. The scary thing is the city and university are following the same path, especially in their pursuits of drink-special bans.
While MADD operates primarily on the federal level, the city and university too often seem to share MADD’s conviction that more regulations can stop students from drinking. And just as MADD fails to see the benefits of people drinking more beer than hard liquor, so the city and university fail to recognize the benefits of students drinking in bars instead of dangerous house parties.
It is past time for a realistic approach to drinking on both the federal and local levels. Encouraging diverse entertainment options, advertising social norms and emphasizing personal responsibility will do more good than prohibition ever could.
