A Covert War Against Drinking - American Beverage Institute

The Anti-Drunk Driving Campaign:A Covert War Against DrinkingBy Charles V. PeñaCharles V. Peña is the former executive director of the MADD Northern Virginia Chapter and theformer executive director of the American Council on Alcoholism. He is currently a policy studiesdirector at the Cato Institute, www.cato.org, a public policy think tank in Washington, DC. The viewsexpressed are those of the author and do not represent the views of his current or former employers.Published By

The Anti Drunk Driving Campaign:A Covert War Against DrinkingBy Charles V. PeñaIntroductionIn the beginning, the campaign againstdrunk driving — led by Mothers AgainstDrunk Driving or MADD — was about savinglives. Born in the grief of its grassrootsmembership, in the 1980s it took on a realmenace: society’s tendency to wink at plastereddrivers who caused mayhem tothemselves and others.MADD’s legislative efforts resulted instates passing and enforcing a raft of antidrunkdriving laws. Across the nation, thereare now more than 23,000 traffic safety laws. 1MADD also helped to correct social normsabout drunk driving; drunks who drovewere transformed in the popular eye fromlovable, comic figures to reckless publicenemies. For its original mission, MADDfound many allies and spawned similargroups such as RID (Remove IntoxicatedDrivers), SADD (formerly Students AgainstDrunk Driving and now Students AgainstDestructive Decisions), and RADD(Recording Artists, Actors and AthletesAgainst Drunk Driving).With such broad backing, MADD succeeded.Drunk driving fatalities fell from28,000 in 1980 to 16,000 in 1998 (a 40%decrease) before rising slightly to 17,448 in2001. 2 By 1995, MADD had already reachedits Year 2000 goal of reducing drunk-drivingfatalities. 3 But along the path to success, theoriginal mission of getting truly drunk driversoff the road was lost. Indeed, the “cause”changed, blurring the line between (a) drunkdriving and (b) driving after any amount ofalcohol consumption — a couple of drafts ata ball game, a split of wine at an anniversarydinner, a retirement toast or two.Although MADD officially denies it isseeking the prohibition of moderate drinkingwhen dining out, it remains unofficiallycommitted to the prohibition of alcohol.Temperance is on the tongue of the organization’shighest officials:• According to former MADDPresident Katherine Prescott, “Thereis no safe blood alcohol level, and forthat reason responsible drinkingmeans no drinking and driving.” 4• “Lowering the legal [arrest]standard will be a deterrent forlight drinkers as well as heavydrinkers,”Prescott told USA Todayin 1998. (Emphasis added.) 5• “If you choose to drink, you shouldnever drive. We will not tolerate drinkingand driving — period,” MADDAmerican Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers1

President-elect Karolyn Nunnalleetold an NBC audience in 1997. 6• MADD President Wendy Hamiltonurged potential contributors in aNovember 2002 fundraising letterto, “Forget the limits on BAC. It’sjust not acceptable to drink anddrive. Period.” 7• In a September, 2002 letter to the St.Louis Post-Dispatch, Hamilton said:“Driving is a very serious and complextask. The thought that it can besuccessfully combined with alcoholon the part of the driver or eventhe passengers defies any logic Ican imagine.” 8The .08% BAC DebateBAC, or blood alcohol content, is the measurementthat determines how much alcoholan individual has in his or her bloodstream.A BAC of .06 means that your blood has a.06% blood alcohol content. BAC also servesas a quick-and-easy quantifiable measurementthat allows law enforcement to define“drunk” in the context of drunk driving. Inthe 1990s, most states set .10% BAC as thelegal limit for driving — anything over thatlimit and you were breaking the law.In 1998, MADD pushed Congress to withholdfederal highway funds from any statethat failed to lower their legal limit to .08%BAC. MADD lost the battle in Washingtonthat year, and in the states. 1998 and 1999saw more than 50 separate legislative sessionscovering 32 states consider the .08%BAC standard. Only Texas and Washingtonadopted it. But in 2000, MADD successfullyreintroduced their legislation at the federallevel — far away from the normal citizenswhose state representatives passed hundredsof other highway-safety laws on their merits.At a high-profile White House Rose Gardenevent, Bill Clinton signed the .08% BAC billinto law. Now the 17 states that haven’t cavedinto federal blackmail are in the fight of theirlife. It isn’t easy tackling MADD and swellingbudget deficits at the same time.The battle over .08% BAC legislation glaringlyillustrates how MADD has turned itsattention from truly drunk drivers to drinkingmore generally. And how the anti-drunkdriving message shifted from “friends don’tlet friends drive drunk” to the more radicalmessage of “don’t drink and drive.”MADD generally attempts to mask its radical,neo-prohibitionist agenda in the veneerof sound science and sober statistics. So thepush to blackmail states into lowering thelegal BAC level required “studies” that mightprovide “evidence” of reduced drunk-drivingfatalities should their law pass. A fewinconvenient facts stood in MADD’s way.First, the U.S. Department of Transportation’sFatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)data show that the average BAC level in a fatalcrash where a driver was actually tested is.17% — more than double the proposed.08% BAC standard. 9 Second, the typicalDWI fatality is caused by a person whohas had more than nine drinks before driving.10 And third, nearly two-thirds ofalcohol-related deaths involve drivers with2American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

BACs of .15% and above. 11 Even MADDknows that lowering the BAC to .08% BACwill have no affect on these flagrant scofflaws.Pseudo ScienceDespite the challenges introduced by reality,MADD still manages to cite studiesclaiming that the .08% BAC law saves lives.The most prominent of these was conductedby Boston University sociologist RalphHingson, who declared that a national .08%BAC law would save “500 to 600 lives ayear.” Even before considering its methodologicalflaws, the Hingson study should beconsidered suspect because its author —who is not a traffic safety professional — hasa serious axe to grind. Hingson has a historyof anti-drinking activism, has publishednearly 50 manuscripts on the dangers ofalcohol generally, and currently serves asMADD’s Vice President of Public Policy. 12He is anything but an impartial researcher.Dr. Robert Scopatz is a traffic-researchscientist who directed New York City’sTransportation Research Office before helpingcreate NHTSA data-analysis programs.He reviewed the Hingson study. 13 Whatdid he discover?Hingson’s study paired several .10% stateswith “neighboring” states that had adopted.08 BAC laws. But Hingson had gone “stateshopping.” For example, he compared .08%BAC California with .10% BAC Texas —hardly “neighbor” states. Had Hingson compared.08% BAC California to .10% BACArizona, he would have found no differencebetween the two. Clearly, Hingson waspicking and choosing his comparison statesso that the results would align with his prejudices.Using the same data and numbercrunching techniques as Hingson, Scopatzconcluded: “Selection of logically valid comparisonstates eliminated any evidence of aneffect of the .08% BAC laws in the states thatpassed them.” 14 But Hingson’s numbercrunching techniques were invalid as well.Scopatz observed Hingson’s meta-analysisapproach is “not commonly applied to trafficsafety research.”Another study by Dr. Robert Voas estimatedthat “590 lives could have beensaved” in 1997 if all states adopted .08%BAC laws. 15 But Voas, like Ralph Hingson,has been a member of MADD’s board ofdirectors. And Voas works for the PacificInstitute for Research and Evaluation,which endorses a roadblock programthat stops every other car at least onceannually. 16 He is anything but objective.Aside from Hingson’s flawed study, andVoas’s wild assertions, opponents of drinkingand driving also point to a report publishedby NHTSA— which increasingly marches inlock step with MADD — arguing that 500lives would be spared every year were the.08% BAC law to pass. 17 But in 1999, theGeneral Accounting Office (GAO), the watchdogof the Federal Government, completelyrefuted NHTSA’s .08% BAC study. In fact, ofseven NHTSA papers the GAO reviewed,they found four that “had limitations andraised methodological concerns.” 18 Guesswhose paper was included in the GAO’srebuke? That’s right. Ralph Hingson’s.Among the NHTSA-sponsored studiesadmonished by the GAO was one 1991American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers3

eport predicting a 12% drop in alcoholrelatedhighway deaths in California undera .08% BAC standard. The GAO said thestudy failed to factor in lives saved by a newlicense-revocation law. A 1995 CaliforniaDMV study, which found .08% BAC a nonfactorin fatal crashes, the GAO found“more methodologically sound.” Yet, notedthe GAO review, “although the 1995 studywas more comprehensive than the 1991study, NHTSA’s public statements and literatureoften quote the 12% reduction citedin the 1991 study and rarely refer to the1995 study.” 19 Indeed, NHTSA used the1991 study in testimony before Congress,even though it was a prediction — a predictionrefuted by hard data from the 1995study. 20 Unfortunately, this discrepancy isjust one of many indications that NHTSAhad abandoned professional and analyticalobjectivity in favor of unabashed pursuitof a .08% BAC standard.The GAO also dismissed a 1994 NHTSAstaff study of the first five states to adopt.08% BAC that conveyed “the impressionthat fatal crashes involving alcohol wentdown 40% in one of the five states.” 21 Infact, the 40% figure held true in Vermontfor only one of six measures the NHTSAstaffers included in their study. Moreover,GAO concluded the study was hamstrungby “several important limitations thatmade its findings ‘preliminary.’”Nevertheless, GAO critically observed,“NHTSA’s public statements…weremore definitive.”Three other NHTSA-cited studies, saidGAO, “fall short of conclusively establishingthat .08% BAC laws by themselveshave resulted in reductions in alcohol relatedfatalities.” 22 Specifically:(1) A 1999 NHTSA study of 11 states with.08% BAC laws concluded that just twoof the 11 saw reductions in alcoholrelatedfatalities, while nine did not.Yet NHTSA cited the study as “additionalsupport for the premise that.08% BAC laws help to reduce alcoholrelatedfatalities” — a relationship,said the GAO, that even the study’sauthors “[did] not draw.” 23(2) The GAO accused NHTSAof suppressingits own study concluding, “that the .08BAC law in North Carolina had littleclear effect.” Disturbed by the study’sfailure to support the proposition that.08% BAC saved lives, NHTSA asked itsauthor, Dr. Robert Foss, to recalculate.“We looked real hard [for] measurableeffects of this law,” said the scientist. “Tryas we might, we didn’t find anything.” 24NHTSAthen waited 13 months to unveilFoss’ report, only to pass it off as supportingthe agency’s .08% BAC position. 25(3) GAO dismissed a 1999, 50-stateNHTSA study for using flawedmethodology. They chose an analyticalmethod apt to produce a“numerical effect that is larger thanother methods.” In common parlance,that’s called exaggeration. 264American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

Considering all the pseudo scienceemployed by NHTSA, the GAO concluded:[T]he evidence does not conclusivelyestablish that .08 BAC laws by themselvesresult in reductions in the number andseverity of crashes involving alcohol.…NHTSA’s position—that the evidencewas conclusive—was overstated.” 27Dismissing the conclusions of its ownauthors, willfully employing flawedmethodology, and selectively publicizingmisleading information. That’s the NHTSA,which — in its zeal to promote MADDinspiredlegislation — improperly placesthe imprimatur of a supposedly neutralgovernment agency on junk science.NHTSA can no longer be considered animpartial arbiter of the nation’s accident statistics.Its oft-quoted statistic that drunkdriving took 17,448 lives in 2001 is based onflawed initial reporting, questionable computersimulations, and outrightmisrepresentation. The Los Angeles Times tellsthe story of an Alabama State Trooper namedDarrick Dorough who was assigned to investigatea fatal crash. 28 Dorough reported thatthe driver had been drinking, but he nevertook an alcohol test, and he later could notrecall why he suspected drinking in the firstplace: “I don’t think drinking was the primarycause of the accident. It could havecontributed to it. That’s a guess.” 29 Still,NHTSA labeled that “guess” as an alcoholrelatedfatality. Such are the stories thatcomprise NHTSA’s statistics.Then there are the cases where no oneeven reported alcohol usage. NHTSA usesa mathematical model to determine whethersome crashes involved alcohol. Accordingto the LA Times, “If a young man hits a treeearly in the morning, the model would classifythe crash as alcohol-related, evenwithout any evidence of alcohol.” 30 Onewonders: if NHTSA uses their model to sayalcohol was involved when no evidenceexists to that effect, perhaps they shouldstart using the model to say alcohol was notinvolved, even if the driver had an openbottle of whisky in hand.Only about 5,000 of the flawed 17,448 numberare innocents killed by drunk drivers.Between 2,500 to 3,500 cases involved alcohol,but neither driver was drunk. 1,770 weredrunk pedestrians killed by sober drivers.And about 8,000 involved only a single car.For the most part, the driver himself was theonly one killed in these cases. 31.08% BAC Despite the FactsUndeterred by the many problems with the17,448 figure, the director of NHTSA’s datacompilation center confidently claims thatall these highway deaths would have beenprevented if no driver had consumed anyalcohol. Never mind the nearly 2,000 drunkpedestrians who got themselves killed.NHTSA is less concerned with accuracythan with achieving its agenda.The more evidence that comes in fromstates that have gone to a .08% BAC standard,the weaker the case is for .08. In a fairfight of facts, the argument for .08% BAC lostagain and again:American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers5

• Of the first 13 states that droppedtheir BAC threshold to .08% BAC,46% saw alcohol-related fatalityincrease in one of the first two yearsthereafter. 32 The logical inference: it’seven money whether death rates willdrop or rise post-.08, because thestandard is safety-neutral.• A December 1998 report to the NewJersey Senate — written by a blueribbontask force including policeofficers, judges, clergy members, anddoctors — found that “the impact of[.08 laws] is inconclusive.” 33• Even .08% BAC advocate Voas wrote,“drivers in the .08 to .09 range…oftendo not exhibit the blatant erratic drivingof higher BAC offenders.” 34 Couldthis be because they are not dangerous?Statistics like these compel Tom Rukavina,a state legislator from Minnesota, to denyany safety benefit from a .08 law. He estimatesthat the law would merely result in6,000 additional criminal arrests in Minnesota,costing the public sixty million dollars. 35The Interlocking DirectorateNHTSA’s most recent publication of trafficsafety facts (2000) shows that the percentageof non-alcohol-related fatalities has beengoing up almost continuously since 1986,while the percentage of alcohol-related fatalitieshas been going down over the sameperiod of time. 36 The death toll from nonalcoholrelated accidents on the road rose39% in the last two decades to 24,700 in2001. That’s nearly 50% higher than theinflated 17,448 number. Even so, NHTSAspends more than half its funds on drinkingand driving programs. What explainsthis disproportionate fund allocation?Clearly, NHTSA uses taxpayer dollars tohelp further MADD’s agenda. But what’s lessclear is how NHTSAand MADD, governmentauthorities and the nonprofit sector, haveformed an “interlocking directorate” thatmake it difficult to separate academic fromactivist, professional from propagandist.No NHTSA event would be completewithout MADD. When NHTSA decided tocelebrate the holiday season this pastDecember with a campaign called “YouDrink and Drive. You Lose.” MADD featuredprominently at the press conference.So did Chief William B. Berger, former presidentof the International Association ofChiefs of Police, who declared, “We willnot allow a man or woman to leave [a roadblock]knowing they consumed alcohol.” 37Taking Berger’s rhetoric at face value, anydrinking prior to driving is outlawed, nomatter how responsible or legal the driver.A glass of wine at dinner, a beer at a ballgameor a cocktail at a friend’s house can putyou on the wrong side of the police. Whatabout .08? Isn’t it legal to drive under thatlevel? Not if you listen to Berger, flanked byofficials from MADD and backed up byNHTSA Administrator Jeffrey W. Runge.In the campaign’s press release he is quotedas saying: “There are nearly onebillion drinking and driving trips annually…this crime will not be tolerated.” 386American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

“You Drink and Drive. You Lose.” promiseda nationwide system of roadblocks, thereal purpose of which is not to catch the dangerouslyimpaired; rather it is to ensnareresponsible social drinkers who committedthe “crime” of having an adult beverage withtheir meal before driving home. MADD freelyacknowledges the purpose of roadblocks onits website, arguing, “If the public is aware thepolice will be conducting checkpoints…theydrink less.” 39 No wonder MADD wantsCongress to set up a billion dollar fund formore roadblocks. Its good friend NHTSAwould administer the cash.MADD lobbies to have NHTSA allottedadditional funds, NHTSA gives lobbyingmoney to MADD. In 1997, NHTSA grantedalmost a half-million dollars to MADD andanother group to “impact state legislativedeliberation” and create a “network of highlymotivated thoroughly trained individualsthat will assist in the passage of impaireddriver legislation.” 40 That means tax dollarswere going directly into the hands of neo-prohibitionistlobbyists. An outraged U.S. Rep.Billy Tauzin reacted by inserting languagein NHTSA’s reauthorization barring it fromthird-party lobbying. 41But the damage had already been done.MADD had 11 chapters at the end of 1981.Nine months later MADD boasted 70 chapters—thanksto a grant from NHTSA for"chapter development." 42 And it’s not justmoney. It’s people too. Take James Fell,former chief of research and evaluation inNHTSA’s Traffic Safety Programs department.He’s now on MADD’s nationalboard. 43 NHTSA and MADD should beconsidered a revolving door of money andpeople, with taxpayers footing the bill andresponsible drinkers suffering the consequences.From Drunk Driving to ProhibitionThe campaign against drunk driving hastransformed into a crusade seeminglyintent on making alcoholic beverages sodisreputable they will be consumed onlyin one’s home or some place removed frompolite society. Drunk driving is a naturalstarting point for this movement becausedrunk driving deaths engender such passionand emotion.The road to neo-Prohibition proceeds alongtwo lines of attack. First, anti-drunk drivingadvocates aim to steadily decrease the amountof alcohol a motorist can consume beforebecoming a criminal. Second, the movementworks to ever expand the settings where anydrinking of alcoholic beverages is verboten.Countdown to .02% BACIn 1998, even before a .08% BAC sanction hadbeen passed and adopted, President Clintonpromised to stand with MADD and likegroups if they returned to demand an evenlower threshold. 44 It didn’t take them long.While waging the .08% BAC war, MADDreserved the right to agitate for still lowerBACs if “research” suggested levels below.08% posed a danger. 45 Predictably, thatresearch immediately materialized: an August2000 study published by NHTSA claims,“alcohol significantly impaired performanceon some measures [of driving skills] at allexamined BACs from .02 to .10%…“The majorAmerican Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers7

conclusion of this study is that a majority ofthe driving population is impaired in someimportant measures at BACs as low as.02%…The data provides no evidence of aBAC below which impairment does notoccur.” 46 Studies like these have piled up inrecent years. But Brian O’Neill, President ofthe highly respected Insurance Institute forHighway Safety, is skeptical. He argues that,“we should focus on people who are seriouslyimpaired” and points out that,“theoretically, very small amounts of alcoholin your blood impairs you, but so doantihistamines and lack of sleep.” 47Unfortunately, the drunk driving debate hasbecome so emotional that common sense likeO’Neill’s is a rarity.MADD’s current President, WendyHamilton, sat on the Board of MADD Canadawhen it was pushing for a .05% BAC limit. 48Lawmakers in at least eight current .08 states— Utah, Oregon, Hawaii, Vermont, NewYork, New Mexico, Washington — haveattempted to lower the BAC to .06% or below.“We call it prohibition drip by drip,” saysthe president of the Ohio Senate, RichardFinan. 49 Even a United States Senator echoesthe zero tolerance sentiment: “we may windup this country going to zero tolerance – period”says Barbara Boxer (D-CA). 50Neo-ProhibitionismIn 1998, delegates to the American MedicalAssociation’s (AMA) annual conferenceheard a speech by a Norwegian influentialin his country’s anti-alcohol movement. 51The speaker introduced to the assembly thenotion of “alcohol-free zones” — places orsituations where policymakers might reasonablyrestrict the consumption of beer,wine, and liquor. These included:• in traffic• on the water, whetherboating or swimming• at work• during conflicts• during pregnancy• while in mourning or depressed• around children• during sports or otheroutdoor activities.While some of these “alcohol-free zones”make sense in proper context, if adopted intotality they would virtually eliminate socialdrinking as a public activity (no more alcohol-enhancedoffice parties, hockey games,or Fourth of July picnics). And by drawingthe circle of social acceptability ever tighter,they would implicitly brand alcohol consumptionin bars and restaurants asdeviancy — to be avoided by all “good citizens.”After all, if drinking is bad in mostplaces, why not everywhere?This neo-prohibition, as measured byever-mounting anecdotes, is a process wellunder way. Consider how far the followingdepart from traditional tolerance ofresponsible drinking:• The Association of Flight Attendantswants airlines to stop serving passengers“pre-departure drinks” and TheCenter for Science in the PublicInterest has promoted a banning8American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

alcohol on planes as a way to curbviolent behavior by passengers. 52There has been almost no pushbackfrom the airlines. Indeed, United andNorthwest promised to cut back onin-flight sales.• Banning alcohol in the air is hardly anew idea. The Crabby Traveler, whowrites a travel column for ABCNews’ Web site, cites examples of afew deranged air passengers whohave made trouble and urgesactivists to “fight for an alcohol banas vigorously as they did to extinguishsmoking.” 53 Statistics providedby British Airways take a bite out ofthe Crabby Traveler’s argument. Theairline reported only 266 “disruptive”passengers out of the 41 millionwho flew on the carrier in 1997.What’s more, only 37 of those incidentsinvolved alcohol. 54• Having a beer at lunch is now a firingoffense for Michigan state employeessince the Civil Service Commissionimposed a .02 BAC during workhours. “Our position,” said one civilserviceofficial, “is that on-dutyactivity, whether you’re representingour state at a convention [emphasisadded] or sitting in your office, meansthat you don’t drink.” 55• Oregon’s Department of MotorVehicles refused to issue a vanitylicense plate with the letters “W-I-N-E” to a retired wine dealer, describingthis message as “offensive.” 56• Anti-alcohol activist Sandy Goldenargues that, “It’s time to get the countrylooking at the alcohol industry in exactlythe same way we’re looking attobacco…. We’re 10 to 15 years behindthe tobacco people, and we want toclose that gap in the next year or two.” 57• A 1999 MADD television spot showsheroin being boiled in a spoon andsucked into a syringe while the voiceoverintones that alcohol kills morepeople under 21 than all illegal drugscombined. Message: just as there isno safe amount of heroin or crackcocaine, there is no safe drinking.• In Arlington, Texas, MADDopposed any beer drinking bygolfers at a public course. “I’ve seenhow alcohol can destroy lives,” saida MADD spokesman. “Life is riskyenough on its own.” 58These opponents of alcohol would be wellserved to hear what economist, MarkThornton has to say: “The lessons ofProhibition should be used to curb the urgeto prohibit. Neoprohibition of alcohol …would result in more crime, corruption, anddangerous products and increased governmentcontrol over the average citizen’s life.” 59Americans who treat adult beverages likethe plague are getting a boost from the U.S.government, which is painting the moderateand reasonable consumption of alcohol,unrelated to driving, as a public-health problem.From 1990 to 2000, the NationalAmerican Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers9

Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse(NIAAA) — a taxpayer-funded agency witha $243 million budget — set out to cut theconsumption of adult beverages by 24% aspart of a “Healthy People 2000” coalition. 60No one, least of all the beverage industry,supports alcohol abuse. But NIAAAdefineda “lifetime alcohol user” in need of medicaltreatment as anyone who had consumedjust 12 drinks in any one-year period. 61Healthy People 2000 ended the decadewithin reach of its goal: U.S. per-capita consumptionof alcohol had dipped 21% between1981 and 1996, with the average Americanimbibing more than a half-gallon less peryear by the end of that period. 62 The coalitioncelebrated its victory in that battle, but did notcall off the war. By 2010 it hopes to reduce percapitaalcohol intake by another 9%. 63The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation isone of the driving forces behind the neo-prohibitionistmovement. It has contributedover $160 million to anti-alcohol organizationssince 1999. 64 Its goal is to reduce percapita alcohol consumption – a very differentaim than reducing alcohol abuse ordrunk driving. To achieve that goal, theRobert Wood Johnson Foundation supportsanti-alcohol publicity campaigns, limits orbans on the consumption of alcohol in publicplaces, bans on Sunday liquor sales,increased taxes, and restrictions on whereretailers can set up shop. The Foundationfunds conferences of alcohol’s opponents,where participants present papers fundedby the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.One such paper, written by the RandCorporation’s Deborah Cohen, argued thatalcohol-related health problems in a populationare directly related to per capitaconsumption. To reduce per capita consumption,she recommends anot-so-surprising combination of “greaterrestrictions on alcohol accessibility, stricterdisciplinary measures for violations andstricter licensure requirements.” 65 She toldthe Dallas Morning News: “it’s easier to controlthe providers than it is the consumers.” 66Of course, MADD praised the study’s “provenand important recommendations.” 67Influenced by this neo-Prohibitionistmovement, more Americans are seeing alcoholas unhealthy. Consider these findingsfrom national polls:• 81% of the public believe drinkingalcohol is as harmful or more harmfulthan smoking marijuana. 68• 80% think the problems of alcoholconsumption far outweigh the benefits.Among “drinkers,” 62% think theproblems outweigh the benefits. 69• 44% feel the government is doing toolittle to regulate alcohol (versus 38%with that attitude about tobacco). 70• Only 21% dispute the propositionthat the health negatives of winevastly outweigh its health benefits. 71• 55% agree that the spirits industry isa “harm” or a “great harm”; 50%think the beer industry harmful; 43%say the same of the wine industry. 7210American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

These numbers are particularly disturbingsince numerous scientific studies link moderatealcohol consumption to longer life:• Researchers in Bordeaux, France, havefound that Frenchmen who drink twoto three glasses of wine daily have “asignificantly lower risk of death fromall causes” than do teetotalers. 73• Research from the TNO Nutrition andFood Research Institute associatesmoderate beer drinking with a lowerrisk of cardiovascular diseases. 74• Men who consume four to sixdrinks a week, according to aHarvard study, reduce their risk offatal heart attacks by 60%. (Of thisgroup, those who went from fourdrinks to five or six actually enjoyeda further 19% risk reduction.) 75• Some diabetics, reports The Journal ofthe American Medical Association, seemto enjoy a “strong reduction” in deathdue to heart disease by drinking lightto moderate amounts of alcohol. 76• “The science supporting the protectiverole of alcohol is indisputable; noone questions it any more,” says Dr.Curtis Ellison, a professor of medicineand public health at the BostonUniversity School of Medicine.“There have been hundreds ofstudies, all consistent.” 77How far has neo-prohibition progressed?In Wisconsin (often called America’sBavaria), Sheriff Paul Bucher unleashed hisdeputies to enter private residences “byforce if necessary” if they suspected minorswere drinking inside. 78 No warrants. Antialcoholfever evidently trumps the FourthAmendment. Meanwhile, SecurityLink ispitching a breathalyzer/video-camera arraythat permits police to check the sobriety ofAmericans in their own homes. 79A man’s “castle” is no longer safe, andneither is his tavern. It will probably surpriseyou to learn that “you can’t be drunk in abar.” So says Fairfax County (VA) PoliceChief J. Thomas Manger. 80 He claims thatpublic intoxication is an offense worthy ofarrest, and a tavern is a public place. ThisJanuary, officers burst into Northern Virginiabars in search of intoxicated patrons. Anyoneregistering over .08% BAC — the state’slegal limit for driving — was subject to arrest.Bar-goers with that unlucky fate “would betransported to an adult detention centeruntil they sobered up.” 81Here’s The Washington Post with onewoman’s story: “as the designated driver inher dinner party, Pat Habib was careful toconsume no more than one alcoholic drinkand follow it up with two sodas. So she wasshocked when a police officer singled her outof the crowd at Jimmy’s Old Town Tavernin Herndon and asked her to step outsideto prove her sobriety.” 82 That’s right. Thepolice forced her to prove she was sober —in a bar. Among the tactics they used to tellwho might be drunk: “frequent trips to thebathroom.” You’d think law enforcementAmerican Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers11

would have something better to do thanplay hall monitor.The county constables insist that theirpolicy of harassing social drinkers is “proactive,”and claim to be targeting “the rootcauses of alcohol-related deaths.” 83 In otherwords, they’re subjecting people to arrest forwhat they might do. As former CongressmanBob Barr (R-GA) noted in the wake of theraids, The Department of Precrime in theTom Cruise film Minority Report was supposedto be fictional. 84 Unfortunately, whenit comes to the zeal of anti-alcohol forces, itseems that nothing is off limits.MADD’s hijacking of the anti-drunk-drivingcrusade into a never-ending agendaadvocating zero-tolerance proceeds apace.In an effort to demonize even prudent alcoholconsumption, the organization hasofficially advocated a substantial increasein taxation on alcoholic beverages. 85Moreover, MADD opposes legal reforms toeliminate “joint and several liability.” 86 Thatis, it supports “deep pockets” litigation,believing that companies tangentially connectedwith product misuse should be liablein case of a mishap. Such legal practicesobviously increase pressure on corporationsto suppress product sales as a meansof self-protection.There is some good news: The nation’s antialcoholreligion wanes as well as waxes. InAmerica’s early days, writes Edward Behr,everyone drank, including the babies whosemilk was laced with rum and the horsebackpreachers whose calls were occasions to tipa jug. 87 Later came the keg-busters and thehatchet brigades, which have returned, if insomewhat blander form. But if history is aguide, they will not endure.Focus on Drunk Driving, not DrinkingI worry that the movement I helped createhas lost direction. [.08 legislation]ignores the real core of the problem…Ifwe really want to save lives, let’s go afterthe most dangerous drivers on the road.—Candy Lightner, founder of MADD 88What is to be done? We must unmask thetrue menace — the chronic, ungovernabledrunk driver who is not deterred by drunkdriving laws of any kind. Political and financialresources being finite, it’s imperativenot to spend them chasing responsible socialdrinkers just to keep special interest groupsin business.Even MADD occasionally shows signs ofunderstanding the real problem when itcomes to drunk driving. In late 1999, itlaunched a nationwide offensive against“repeat offenders and super-drunk drivers.” 89In a press release, it cited NHTSA data thatspotlighted, for once, the real problem.According to NHTSA, two-thirds of all alcohol-relatedhighway deaths implicate driverswith a BAC level of .15% or higher. 90 Indeed,the driver who killed MADD founder CandyLightner’s daughter had a .20% BAC. 91 Andthe killer of former MADD President KarolynNunnallee’s child registered .24% BAC. 92 Toobad MADD generally ignores the evidencethat strikes closest to home.Even when public attitudes toward drinkingand driving were highly permissive, the12American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

“super-drunk driver” with an alcohol addictionhas been the overarching threat.According to Voas, approximately one-halfof first-time DWI offenders have BAC of atleast 0.15% when arrested. 93 A nationwidepre-trial screening service discovered thatmore than 70% of repeat drunk-drivingoffenders were hard-core alcoholics, with anaverage BAC of .20%.The driving peril of high-BAC drivers whocause the lion’s share of alcohol-linked highwaydeaths will remain undiminished as longas law-enforcement energies focus on thewrong target: low BAC drivers. Ever-lowerBAC standards, as the 1995 California DMVstudy of that state’s .08% BAC law concluded,merely cause in-control drinkers to furtherrestrict their intake before driving. 94 The alcoholicscofflaw keeps on drinking to the max.States that allow on-the-spot administrativedriver’s licenses suspensions, thataggressively enforce sensible BAC limits,and that strongly penalize convicted drunkdrivers who continue to drive on suspendedlicenses are pursuing strategiesthat really get potential killers off the road.What’s missing, however, is a system ofgraduated penalties. Every state in thenation employs such a system for speeding— fining, for example, the driver whoexceeds the speed limit by 40 mph substantiallymore than the one who goes 10mph over the limit. Only recently havestates begun to acknowledge the need forincreased penalties for high-BAC drivers,but these levels generally start at twicethe federal mandate of .08% BAC . In moststates, however, stay just this side of yourstate’s BAC and you are (generally) unpunished.Go one-hundredth of one percentover the line and endure the same sanctionsthat await a serious drunk driver.The result? Society recoils from legislatingthe kind of sanctions that trulydrunk drivers deserve, lest they be forcedto apply overly-harsh punishments totechnical violators of BAC laws. EvenNHTSA admits that a 120-pound womanwith an average metabolism will hit .08%BAC if she drinks two six-ounce glasses ofwine over the course of two hours. 95Common sense says she shouldn’t go to jailfor getting behind the wheel.Penalties for repeat offenders should besubstantially harsher, with prison terms —hard time — awaiting drunk drivers whodrive on a suspended license. Truly drunkdriving is a crime. It’s time we began applyingthe same punishment paradigm to thatoffense that governs all others.MADD’s founder is right: “if we reallywant to save lives, let’s go after the most dangerousdrivers on the road.” 96 Marshalingpublic support for this goal would be thefirst step in seeing a dramatic decrease in thetoll of drunk driving’s victims.TreatmentThe other piece of the puzzle that requiresattention and resources is treatment. Tobe sure, truly drunk drivers need to bepunished. But punishment alone is notlikely to succeed in curbing their drinkinghabit. Chronic alcohol abusers and alcoholicsneed treatment for their drinkingproblems, so that they don’t become drunkAmerican Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers13

drivers. The traffic safety community haslong recognized this, but traditional meansof prevention have had little or no effect.Education programs, license suspension orrevocation, and other sanctions do notdeter these drivers. Even jail time does notstop them from drinking and driving oncethey are released.The only way to effectively deal with the“hard core” drunk driver is treatment.Treatment works, but there is no “one-sizefits-all”treatment for alcoholism andchronic alcohol abuse. AA has been hugelysuccessful in helping people to stopdrinking (and currently claims more than100,000 groups and over 2,000,000 membersin 150 countries), but the program does notwork for everyone. 97 Treatment centers suchas the Betty Ford Center and Hazelden havehelped countless people, but can be costly. 98And pharmaceutical products such as naltrexonehave proved to be effective incurbing alcohol dependence. 99Treatment is not an absolute guaranteethat an alcoholic will recover and neveragain pose a threat as a drunk driver. Butwithout treatment, an alcoholic is destinedto live the rest of his or her life out of a bottle,and that virtually guarantees that heor she will continue to be a drunk driver.Recognizing the need for treatment, manyjurisdictions around the country (includingPhoenix, AZ; Bakersfield and Chico, CA;Hancock County, IN; Albuquerque, NM;Charlotte, NC; Stillwater, OK; andFredericksburg, VA) have created DUI courtsmodeled after the successful drug court system.100 DUI courts apply the ten keycomponents of drug courts to the problem ofhard core drunk drivers:• Integrate alcohol treatment serviceswith justice system case processing.• Employ a non-adversarialapproach, where prosecutionand defense counsel promotepublic safety while protectingparticipants’ due process rights.• Participants are identified early andpromptly placed in the program.• Provide access to a continuumof alcohol treatment andrehabilitation services.• Abstinence is monitored byfrequent testing.• Coordinated strategy governscourt responses to participants’compliance.• Ongoing judicial interaction witheach participant is essential.• Monitoring and evaluation measurethe achievement of program goalsand gauge effectiveness.• Continuing interdisciplinaryeducation promotes effectivecourt planning, implementation,and operations.• Forging partnerships with publicagencies and community-basedorganizations generates local14American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

support and enhances court programeffectiveness.DUI courts represent a legal means of interventionto provide treatment for alcoholismand alcohol abuse. In other words, DUI courtsrecognize that the act of drunk driving is acrime, but the consumption of alcohol is not.And the system is set up to help the individualwith his or her particular alcohol problem.So, unlike more broad and sweeping measures(e.g., .08 BAC and roadblocks), DUIcourts are focused, and directly address thedrunk driving problem without infringingupon those who act responsibly and don’tendanger innocent people.ConclusionNo one denies that some drinkers of adultlibations habitually overconsume, with tragicconsequences for themselves, theirfamilies, and innocents unfortunate enoughto cross their weaving path on the highway.Drinking alcohol is not, as the NewProhibitionists assert, all bad. It is hard toname a freedom that carries no risk, or aproduct that human irresponsibility has notat some point turned into a weapon.Perspective is what balances the equation.MADD and its allies oppose any “drinkingand driving.” That certainly is theirright. Yet the traditional role of alcohol as asocial lubricant and host to conviviality cannotbe denied. “The sun looks down onnothing half so good,” wrote C.S. Lewis,“as a household laughing together over ameal, or two friends talking over a pint ofbeer.” ci Today, tens of millions of Americansvalue those same experiences. They findcamaraderie, cement friendship, and reaffirmlove in restaurants where alcohol helpsconfirm these vital human ceremonies.Many must use a car to get there, and toreturn home. How great is the risk?For the vast majority of these citizens—theresponsible majority, who know when tostop—the risk is small. To eliminate it totallyremoves these people’s right to publiclycelebrate the most fundamental human connections.The risk that such celebrations createis no more inordinate than that created whenwe allow drivers to go 65 mph on an interstate,knowing full well that a 25 mph capwould be safer. In a free society, the questionis one of balancing competing goods.The Prohibitionist—the Absolutist—impulse is always with us. Once itsspokesmen alleged that drinkers mightexplode if they stood too close to an openflame. Today they charge that drinkers, howeverprudent and careful in consumption,are wreaking slaughter on other motoristsand pedestrians. Folly then, folly now.What’s needed is a new alliance of reason—aleague of hard-headed realists thatwould preserve revered social rituals bytempering the New Temperance, yet championsafety by relentlessly targeting thereckless few.To fight with each other while this menacebarrels past, claiming new victims, is toexacerbate the problem. It is not to behavewith sobriety.American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers15

Endnotes1 “Some People Question Further Need forOrganization,” The Columbus Dispatch, 12January 2003.2 U.S. Department of Transportation, NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration, TrafficSafety Facts 2000, DOT HS 809 337, April 2002,32; and National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration, Traffic Safety Facts 2001, DOTHS 809 470, December 2002, 1.3 “Really MADD: Looking Back at 20 Years,”DRIVEN, Spring 2000.4 “MADD’s Mission is to Save Lives,” ChicagoTribune, 18 February 1997.5 “Drunken Driving Laws ’98: States Face Debateon Legal Limit,” USA Today, 2 January 1998.6 Karolyn Nunnallee, Today Show, 12 October 1996.7 MADD Fundraising Letter, December 2002.8 “No Drunks Need to Drive,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12 September 2002.9 Unpublished analysis of U.S. Department ofTransportation Fatality Analysis ReportingSystem data on BAC levels and fatalities inaccidents where a driver was actually tested.10 According to NHTSA’s BAC Estimator (developedin October 1994), a 160-pound man withan average metabolism who drank 9.5 drinksin a four-hour time period without food wouldreach 0.16% BAC (A drink is defined by theprogram as containing 0.54 ounces of alcohol.).11 Analysis of U.S. Department of TransportationFatality Analysis Reporting System data.Calculation includes traffic fatalities in which adriver involved was actually tested at 0.01%BAC or above. All deaths were categorizedaccording to the highest BAC of a driver byindividual crash.12 Boston University School of Public Health biographyof Ralph Hingson, http://www.bumc.bu.edu/sph/FacultyStaff/FacultyDetail.asp?PeopleID=625; accessed 1 March 2003.13 Robert Scopatz, “Analysis of 1975-1993 FatalCrash Experience in states with 0.08% LegalBlood Alcohol Levels,” American BeverageInstitute, Executive Summary, May 1997.14 Ibid., 12.15 Robert Voas et al., Effectiveness of the Illinois .08Law, Pacific Institute for Research andEvaluation for National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration, September 2000.16 “Researcher Examines ‘Real World’ Effects ofAlcohol Prevention,” Food & Drink Daily 5, no.85 (5 May 1995).17 James Fell and Delmas Johnson, “The Impact ofLowering the Illegal BAC Limit to .08 in FiveStates in the U.S.,” 39 th Annual Proceedings ofthe Association for the Advancement ofAutomotive Medicine, Chicago, IL (1995), 45-63.18 “Highway Safety: Effectiveness of State .08Blood Alcohol Laws”, General AccountingOffice Report to Congressional Committees,GAO/RCED-99-179, June 1999, 21.19 Ibid., 14.20 Hearing of the Transportation andInfrastructure Subcommittee of the SenateEnvironment and Public Works Committee onthe Surface Transportation Act Renewal,Testimony of Mr. Phillip R. Recht DeputyAdministrator for the National HighwayTraffic and Safety Administration, 7 May 1997.21 GAO Report, Highway Safety, 16.22 Ibid.23 Ibid.16American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

24 “UNC Study: Lower Blood Alcohol Level notHelping Much,” Chapel Hill Herald, 10 January1999.25 Ibid.26 GAO Report, Highway Safety, 20.27 GAO Report, Highway Safety, 25.28 “A Spirited Debate Over DUI Laws,” LosAngeles Times, 30 December 2002.29 Ibid.30 Ibid.31 Ibid.32 Unpublished analysis of U.S. Department ofTransportation Fatality Analysis ReportingSystem data. Calculation includes traffic fatalitiesin which a driver involved was actuallytested at 0.01% BAC or above. All deaths werecategorized according to the highest BAC of adriver by individual crash. State statistics from1983 to 1997 were reviewed.33 New Jersey Senate Task Force Report onAlcohol Related Motor Vehicle Accidents andFatalities (11 December 1998), quoted in U.S.General Accounting Office Report toCongressional Committees, Highway Safety:Effectiveness of State .08 Blood Alcohol Laws,(June 1999) GAO/RCED-99-179, 13.34 Voas et al., Effectiveness of the Illinois .08 Law.35 “17 States Balk at U.S. Push to Redefine DUIThreshold,” Chicago Tribune, 1 January 2003.36 U.S. Department of Transportation, TrafficSafety Facts 2000.37 National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationPress Conference, 18 December 2002.38 “New Year’s Eve a Time for Caution,” The AtlantaJournal and Constitution, 27 December 2002.39 Mothers Against Drunk Driving, “SobrietyCheckpoints: Facts & Myths,” from MADDwebsite; available from http://www.madd.org/madd_programs/0,1056,1229,00.html;accessed 1 March 2003.40 U.S. Department of Transportation, NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration,“Transportation Department Announces $2.4Million in Grants for Eight States,” PressRelease, 15 October 1997.41 Transportation Equity Act of the 21 st Century,Public Law Number 105-178, Title VII, Subtitle A,Section 7104 (a), Subsection 30105, 9 June 1998.42 Mothers Against Drunk Driving, "RallyMADD: Looking Back at 20 Years," fromMADD website; available from http://www.madd.org/aboutus/0,1056,1686,00.html;accessed 23 March 2003.43 Mothers Against Drunk Driving, “Rating theStates 2002 - Speeches,” from MADD website;available from http://www3.madd.org/laws/rts_speeches.cfm; accessed 1 March 2003.44 President William J. Clinton, “Clinton Remarksat Signing of the Presidential Directive toReduce Drunk Driving,” U.S. NewswireTranscript, 3 March 1998.45 Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Super DrunkDrivers and Repeat Offenders, Press Conference, 29December 1999, C-SPAN Archives ID: 154394.46 U.S. Department of Transportation, NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration,“Driver Characteristics and Impairment atVarious BACs,” DOT HS 809 075, August 2000;available from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/impaired_driving/BAC/technicalsum.html; accessed 1 March 2003.47 17 States Balk at U.S. Push to Redefine DUIThreshold.48 See Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 2000Annual Report; available from http://madd.ca/library/madd2000.pdf; accessed 1 March 2003,Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 2001Annual Report; available from http://madd.ca/library/madd2001.pdf; accessed 1March 2003.49 17 States Balk at U.S. Push to Redefine DUIThreshold.50 Hearing of the Transportation and InfrastructureSubcommittee of the Senate Environment andAmerican Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers17

Public Works Committee on the SurfaceTransportation Act Renewal, 7 May 1997.51 The group, AlkoKutt, is still active in theNorwegian temperance movement. SeeAlkoKutt’s home page “8 Alcohol Free Zones,”http://www.alkokutt.no/english/; accessed 1March 2003.52 “Unfit to Fly: Passengers Disrupt Flights AfterDrinking Alcohol,” Dateline NBC, 24 April 2001.53 Christopher Elliot, “Flying High,” ABCNEWS.com, The Crabby Traveler; available fromhttp://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/travel/Crabby/alcohol.html; Posted 3 August 1998;accessed 1 March 2003.54 “Carrier Calls for Mobilization AgainstDisruptive Minority,” Air Safety Week, 9November 1998.55 “Strict Drug, Drinking Rules for Non-unionState Workers,” The Associated Press State &Local Wire, 28 September 1998.56 “When Do Vanity Plates Become ProfanityPlates?; Some States Forbid What Others Allow,”San Diego Union-Tribune, 29 December 2002.57 Jason Brooks, “Toasting Tobacco,” ReasonMagazine, November 1988.58 “MADD’s Success Relies on its Focus,” DallasMorning News, 10 September 1999.59 Mark Thornton, “Alcohol Prohibition was aFailure,” Cato Policy Analysis, No. 157, 17 July1991; available from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html; accessed 1 March 2003.60 U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Healthy People 2000: National HealthPromotion and Disease Prevention Objectives,Objective 4.8, Government Printing OfficeStock Number 017-001-00474-0 (1991).61 B. F. Grant, “Prevalence and Correlates ofAlcohol Use and DSM-IV Alcohol Dependencein United States: Results of the NationalLongitudinal Alcohol Epidemiology Survey;Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders, 4th ed.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol(September 1997).62 Economic Research Service, “Beverages: PerCapita Consumption, 1970-2000,” FoodConsumption (per capita) Data System, timeseries data source, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/datasystem.asp; accessed 1 March 2003.63 Healthy People 2010 website available fromhttp://www.healthypeople.gov/document/html/objectives/26-12 htm; accessed 1 March 2003.64 From unpublished analysis of grant schedulesin the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation(Federal Employer Identification Number 22-6029397) Form 990 “Return from OrganizationsExempt from Income Tax,” submissions to theInternal Revenue Service from 1999-2001 andavailable from the IRS by request.65 Deborah A. Cohen et al. “The PopulationConsumption Model, Alcohol Control Practices,and Alcohol Related Traffic Fatalities,” PreventiveMedicine, V. 34 (2001): 187-197.66 “Dallas Leads U.S. in Alcohol Road Deaths;Study of 97 Cities Finds Lower Rates in Areaswith Stricter Regulations,” Dallas MorningNews, 14 January 2002.67 “Study Recommendations On the Mark Whenit Comes to Reducing Alcohol-RelatedTraffic Tragedies,” MADD Press Release,14 January 200268 Survey Research Center, Institute for SocialResearch, University of Michigan, TheMonitoring the Future Study; available fromhttp://www.monitoringthefuture.org; accessed1 March 2003.69 Ibid.70 Ibid.71 Opinion Research Corporation and DYG, Inc.,Surveys for the American Beverage Institute, 1995(updated 1998).72 Ibid.73 Serge Renaud, Archives of Internal Medicine, vol159, p 1865.74 “Why Beer can be Even Better for your Heart18American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

than Red Wine,” Daily Mail, 28 April 2000.75 “Study: Frequent Drinking Helps the Heart, NoMatter What You Drink - or How Little at aTime,” Associated Press, 9 January 2003.76 Charles T. Valmadrid et al., “Alcohol Intake andthe Risk of Coronary Heart Disease Mortalityin Persons With Older-Onset DiabetesMellitus,” Journal of American MedicalAssociation, (1999) 282 239-246.77 “The Case for Drinking (All Together Now: InModeration!),” The New York Times, 31December 2002.78 “New Technology Tracks Drunk Drivers,” TheEdmonton Sun, 2 June 1999.79 “Indiana County Tests ‘Photo Breathalyzer,’”CNN.com; available from http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9906/09/breathalyzer.idg/; accessed 1 March 2003.80 “Arrests Inside Bars Leave Bitter Hangover inFairfax; Taverns, Officials Assail PoliceCrackdown on Intoxication,” Washington Post,16 January 2003.81 “Cops Hit Bar to Cite Suspected Drunks,”Washington Times, 7 January 2003.82 “Bar Raids Irritate Owners, Drinkers FairfaxPolice Defend Sobriety Testing,” WashingtonPost, 8 January 2003.83 Fairfax County Police Department PressRelease, 9 January 2003.84 “Crimes Before the Fact,” Washington Times, 9January 2003.85 “MADD Poll: Drunk Driving Still Top U.S.Highway Hazard MADD Supports AlcoholTax To Cover Cost Of Abuse,” Food & DrinkDaily, 8 April 1994.86 “House Bill Limits Damage Payouts,”Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6 July 2002.87 Edward Behr, Prohibition: The 13 Years thatChanged America, Arcade Publishing,September 1997.88 “MADD Agenda Goes Mad with Neo-prohibitionism,”The Atlanta Journal and Constitution,25 March 2002.89 MADD Press Release, 29 December 1999.90 Unpublished analysis of U.S. Department ofTransportation Fatality Analysis ReportingSystem data on BAC levels and fatalities inaccidents where a driver was actually tested.All deaths were categorized according to thehighest BAC of a driver by individual crash.91 “Power MADD,” Washington Times, 6 March 2000.92 Mothers Against Drunk Driving, “Patricia‘Patty’ Susan Nunnallee,” Information onVictims Services & Information on MADD’sWebsite, available at http://www.madd.org/victims/0,1056,5071,00.html; accessed on 1March 2003.93 Robert B. Voas and Deborah A. Fisher, “CourtProcedures for Handling Intoxicated Drivers,”Alcohol Research & Health 25, no. 1 (1 January2001): 32-42.94 California Department of Motor Vehicles,Research and Development Section Division ofProgram and Policy Administration, “TheGeneral Deterrent Impact of California’s 0.08%Blood Alcohol Concentration Limit andAdministrative Per Se License SuspensionLaws,” California Department of Transportation,August 1998.95 According to NHTSA’s BAC Estimator (developedin October 1994), a 120-pound womanwith an average metabolism who drinks 2 6-ounce glasses of wine (at 13% alcohol) wouldreach 0.08% BAC. Most table wine is between12% and 14% alcohol.96 “MADD Agenda Goes Mad with Neo-prohibitionism.”97 Alcoholics Anonymous, “A.A. At A Glance,”;available from http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/default/en_about_aa.cfm?pageid=1;accessed 1 March 2003.98 At the Betty Ford Center, the cost for inpatienttreatment is $1,175 per day for the first six daysand then $430 per day for each inpatient treatmentday thereafter. Betty Ford Center, “BettyFord Center Programs,” available fromAmerican Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers19

http://www.bettyfordcenter.org/programs/programs/prices.html;accessed 1 March 2003.99 For more about naltrexone see NationalInstitute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,“Naltrexone Approved for AlcoholismTreatment,” press release, 17 January 1995;available from http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/press/1995/naltre-text.htm; accessed 1 March2003’ and National Clearinghouse forAlcohol and Drug Information, “Naltrexoneand Alcoholism Treatment,” TreatmentImprovement Protocol (TIP) Series 28; availablefrom http://www.health.org/govpubs/BKD268/; accessed 1 March 2003.100For more about DUI courts see Judge Jeff Tauberand C. West Huddleston, “DUI/Drug Courts:Defining A National Strategy,” National DrugCourt Institute Monograph Series 1, March 1999;available from http://www.ndci.org/dui.pdf;accessed 1 March 2003.101“For the Sound of Some Words,” The PlainDealer, 26 November 1992.20American Beverage Licensees | America's Beer, Wine, and Spirits Retailers

5101 River Road | Suite 108 | Bethesda, MD | 20816-1560 | phone: 301.656.1494 | fax: 301.656.7539