MADD's Position on Alcohol Advertising: A Response to Marshall and Oleson

Abstract

j view it as a serious public danger, a violent crime that results from a person's decision to drive while L e impaired. This widespread change in public attitudes, coupled with the passage of hundreds of tougher anti-drunk driving laws, has led to a drop in alcohol-related fatalities from 25,i65 in I982 to I7,699 in i992 (i) and I7,46I in I993 (z). That this is so is due in large measure to the efforts of one organization: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). The central role of MADD's advocacy work in bringing about this progress is a reality acknowledged by a broad spectrum of highway safety experts, governmental officials, the media, and the public at large (3,54). It would be easy to lose sight of this fact when reading Marshall and Oleson's distorted review of MADD's public policies, "In the Pink: MADD and Public Health Policy in the I990s," which appeared in the Journal's Spring I994 issue (S). Indeed, the impression the authors create is that progress has been made in fighting drunk driving despite MADD, not because of it. The Marshall and Oleson article questions MADD's motivations for a shift in its policies regarding alcohol advertising. The authors claim that MADD's new position is a bow to economic realities that were caused by a shift in the nation's political climate. It is true that MADD's policies regarding the alcohol industry have changed since the organization's founding. But to explain that change in terms of MADD's recent fund-raising needs, as Marshall and Oleson do, is not only unfair, but just plain wrong. We welcome this opportunity to correct the record.