ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, November 16, 1996 TAG: 9611180004
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: TOM ALTMAN
I DO NOT often pay much attention to the prattle of Mothers Against Drunk Driving detractors. However, your Nov. 5 editorial ("Has MADD turned vigilante?") pushed my button. I couldn't believe that a supposedly responsible publication like The Roanoke Times would take such an irresponsible position, totally contrary to the well-being of the driving public.
Over the past two decades, MADD has been instrumental in reducing the tragic incidents of alcohol-related deaths and injuries. This has been accomplished, in large part, by a concerted effort on the part of many volunteers to raise public awareness about driving under the influence of alcohol, and to educate the public about the life-shattering consequences that are often a result of this needless and preventable crime.
MADD members attend sobriety checkpoints as part of this awareness campaign, and to show support for the law officers who conduct these checkpoints. It's mandated by law that a sufficient number of officers man a checkpoint to ensure an orderly and consistent flow of traffic; thereby, minimizing inconvenience to the motorist. These officers cannot leave the area on their breaks. To show appreciation for their efforts to make our roads safer, MADD provides refreshments for them. These refreshments are provided as a public service by Subway, Kroger, Food Lion, Anthony's and Dairy Queen - to name a few. To think this in any way has any influence on the officers in performing their duties is ludicrous.
Every MADD volunteer in America could be at a sobriety checkpoint and it wouldn't alter the fact that if a driver of a vehicle has a blood-alcohol content of .08 or higher, that driver is driving under the influence and committing a crime. No MADD member influenced that individual to break the law. The instrument used to gauge an individual's blood-alcohol content is a highly sophisticated and accurate piece of equipment. I have yet to meet a MADD volunteer who is able to alter the readings of these machines from a distance.
How do you arrive at your conclusion that it's an invasion of one's privacy when a citizen observes passing traffic from the side of a public road? To date, I haven't attended a sobriety checkpoint being conducted in a private driveway.
I am flattered that you think I am qualified to bird dog and monitor these career law officers. I don't need to be at a checkpoint to know these officers are doing their jobs in a competent and professional manner, as difficult as people with your mind-set try to make it for them.
Carry Nation? Come on! MADD's mission is to stop drunken driving and support victims of this violent crime! You can drink grain alcohol until you go blind if that is what you choose to do. What and how much you drink is a personal choice and responsibility, not a MADD issue. But when you drink and drive on my road and place my family and me at risk, it becomes my issue.
As a citizen, a member of MADD and a supporter of law enforcement, I have a right and responsibility to get these irresponsible people off the road. Do we dance with glee when a drunken driver is removed from the road at a checkpoint? No. But I wouldn't be truthful if I said I wasn't glad they were detected before killing or injuring an innocent victim. Ask the Pelton, Kitts and Clark families and hundreds of others in the Roanoke area if things might not be different for them if there had been a sobriety checkpoint at the time and in the area of their tragedies.
In the median of an interstate in West Virginia, a wrecked car sits high on a hill. Atop this car is a large sign that says, ``Sometimes it takes a family of four to stop a drunk driver.'' Poignant message. I'd rather have a state trooper or a deputy sheriff stop the drunken driver - maybe even at the risk of invading his privacy. What is your choice?
I am sure you have a following that read your editorial and exclaimed, ``Right on, Bubba! You sure told 'em this time!'' I'd rather align myself with responsible citizens who aren't ashamed to say to MADD that they appreciate what we're doing and tell us to keep up the good work. And there are a lot of them.
The Vietnam War was a tragic period in American history. Thousands of American lives were lost for no logical reason. Did you know that from 1985 to 1995 four times as many Americans lost their lives in alcohol-related traffic crashes than were killed in that war? It can happen to you. Don't think it can't.
Drunken driving can be stopped. It's a senseless and 100 percent preventable crime. The stopper is called personal responsibility. It takes only one individual to decide to stop it. You! If you drink, don't drive.
Your editorial is a perfect example of uninformed, irresponsible, unnecessary and inflammatory journalism. I believe that MADD, the citizens and law-enforcement officers in your circulation deserve an apology from the editorial writer of this piece of trash.
Tom Altman is president of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Smith Mountain Lake regional chapter.
LENGTH: Medium: 89 linesby CNB