I'm not denying they have done some good things.
I'm merely saying I think they've oversteped their bounds and I don't agree with some of what they do.
Point taken. But, for the sake of this discussion, how many lives does one get to put at risk because one decides he or she must drink & drive?
I don't like the sobriety checkpoints either, but I see nothing wrong with law enforcement waiting outside of bars to see who is so danged drunk that they have trouble even getting into their cars, much less driving. It would seem to me that this would be probable cause to stop them to see.
I agree with you.
I have a friend whose only child was killed by a drunk driver. I definitely want all drunks off the road.
I also have a friend who belongs to MADD, but he has told me about how they overstep. For example, if you take Nyquil (which contains alcohol) and then walk to work and get hit by a car, it is considered an "alcohol-related accident" even though the driver had nothing to drink and even if there was no fault by either party. Sometimes an accident is just that - an accident. But MADD wants to be able to point to dramatic statistics and tries to make it look like every third driver is drunk.
It seems to me that just one drunk driver is one too many. You shouldn't have to be a pack of drama queens who exaggerate and twist the facts to make your point.
I also suspect that like every organization that started out with a good and noble purpose (NAACP, NOW, unions,...), they may have morphed into an organization that is more interested in perpetuating the jobs of its hierarchy than in accomplishing anything worthwhile.