MADD crosses line with new law
The Collegian Opinion

    Another new unnecessary law has appeared in the state of Texas.
The open container law that recently went into effect is just another law to appease a special interest group—in this case Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). The law is not needed because we already have drunken driving laws on the books.

    This new law just makes passengers who drink criminals. This idea infringes on the basic principles that this country was founded on. A law like this automatically assumes that any passenger who wants to have an alcoholic drink in the car will thrust it upon the driver. It also assumes that the driver is so weak-willed that he or she cannot refuse.

    Basically, this law treats us all as children. We don’t know what’s best for us, but MADD or the state does.

    If we are responsible enough to select the leaders of this country and serve on juries, are we not also responsible enough not to drink and drive just because a passenger is drinking?

    Our lawmakers would tell us no. And if we received as much money from MADD as they do, we would probably agree.

    MADD started out as a good idea. They saw drunken driving as a problem and helped change people’s attitudes about it. They also toughened many of the lax laws we had pertaining to DWI.

    Of course like most groups, this organization’s members do not know when to stop. MADD has gone too far.

    MADD has pressured the federal government into enforcing DWI laws. The U.S. government has used threats of reduced highway funding to get rogue states in line with MADD’s agenda. This, of course, is an abuse of federal power. States must be allowed to make their own laws. The Constitution also states this fact.

    People in New York do not face the same circumstances as do people in Texas. State laws should and usually do reflect these differences.

    MADD also favors DWI checkpoints. This means that MADD wants it to be legal for police to set up road-blocks and then check all cars for drunken drivers.

    This action is also a violation of the Constitution. There is such a thing as undue search and seizure.

    Some people will argue that if you are not drunk, there is nothing to worry about. There is something to worry about, though.

    First is the fact that people would even consider giving up their rights so they can be searched is a major problem.

    The second problem is that MADD has outlived its usefulness. MADD served its purpose: it toughened laws and made a difference. It is now time for them to go.

    Maybe, after that, we can return to normalcy in this country instead of the rampant paranoia we currently live in.

    Public opinion seems to be that if one argues against DWI laws being too constrictive or being downright un-American, then suddenly that person is accused of being in favor of driving drunk.
   

    Also, alcohol and tobacco are currently being viewed as the great Satan. A drunken driving smoker would probably be hated more than Hitler at this point in time.

    Maybe society will come back down to Earth and stop with the unnecessary over-legislation of the country.

    Most of the laws we have on the books can be applied to most situations. There is no real need to pass laws that criminalize every tiny bit of behavior unless it is to appease lobbyists.

    That seems to be the real problem, and, as usual, money is at the root of it.