I think a very telling difference is that someone who is firing an assault rifle into a McDonalds, is likely doing so in an attempt to hurt or kill someone. Regardless of the possibility of similar outcomes, a drunk driver is not attempting to kill.

Your post smacks of the same emotion fueled exaggeration that MADD has become known for. As a matter of fact, I remember reading a quote from a MADD publication where a comparison was made between drunk driving and drive by shootings.

To buy that particular brand of tripe, one must voluntarily blind themselves to important factors such as intent and malice.

MADD long ago morphed into a latter day prohibition group. Reasonable drinking or responsible drinking cannot be tolerated. Instead, we must allow all booze because it MIGHT lead to drinking and driving.

Operating a motor vehicle while under the impairment of almost any drug including alcohol, meth, pot, acid, etc. should not be tolerated. However, who carries if the passenger is polluted or is drinking a little rum with that soda?

The good nannies and other nattering naboobs at MADD care a lot. As far as I am concerned, we as a society must tell every person who works with or supports MADD to shut the hell up.

Carrie Nation must be smiling from her special place in Hell.

You may want to start a new organization, because MADD won’t support that.
MADD gets very squeamish when you actually talk about putting people in jail for long periods. Or (another example) tracking Judges’ sentencing records.

You wanna see a piece of work. Go to MADD’s website and search ‘prison’.

What comes up are many MADD press releases. But the word ‘prison’ is only used at the bottom of every page. That’s where they store a whole jumble of words & phrases like ‘Viagara’, ‘Cheap Valium’, ‘Levitra’.

It’s a search engine trap. MADD is very creepy and weird.

1. Why should an 18 year old be allowed to vote and serve in the military but not be allowed to drink? I’m not talking about military ID being allowed to drink. I’m talking about the age equivalency. Why should someone that is eligible to do one not be eligible to do the other?

2. Why should insurance premiums be based on age because of the statistics and BAC limits not follow the statistics?

In the same comparison to auto insurance, I’d also like to see age bracketed BAC limits:

under 18 BAC limit is 0.05
18-24 BAC limit is 0.08
25-34 BAC limit is 0.10
over 35 BAC limit is 0.12

Further make the punishments relative to the BAC limit:

+0.00 to +0.029 = lowest level punishment (still nothing to sneeze at)

+0.030 to +0.049 = stiffer punishment similar to the mandatory sentencing that is currently used

+0.050 or higher = highest level punishment

Add leveling up for repeat offenders as currently enforced.

You’ll catch the idiots early. You’ll still ratchet up quickly for repeat offenders. But you won’t hassle once in a lifetime joe who with an absolutely spotless record blows a 0.08 at the age of 42 because he just (insert reason here).

We do not have the police force or the jail space required to impose such a plan.

Draconian enforcement doesn’t work. The only way to make such a plan work is to create a police state that does away with all the niceties of the criminal justice system.

An intelligently managed democracy figures out how to harness human behavior to its advantage, while deploying its resources effectively. Targeting the casual drinker as Public Enemy Number One is disproportionate and extreme.

By playing to emotions, instead of logic, we end up with unenforceable laws that don’t even fix the problem that they intended to cure. Not only is the cure worse than the disease, but it doesn’t even cure anything.

MADD may have gotten a little distracted but the message that they started with is still entirely valid – don’t drink and drive. Drink if you like but do it at home or someplace where you can walk home or where somebody else will get you home safely.

I did the military police gig for a while and went to some fatalities. It was to me soul jarring. In most cases it was a simple mistake that led to the crash but there were many contributing factors – speed, poor condition of the vehicle, poor driving skills, or alcohol. Somebody cut somebody else off and everyone got tangled. Drunk hit the center rail and then pinballed down the road taking out another car. Something like that. In every case (what few I went to) it was an accident that wasted a life. Decisions were made that took a life – not physics, not metallurgy, or the weather. It was so clear that it didn’t have to turn out like that.

Simple changes of their behavior would have prevented them from getting into an accident like that. They could drive slower, more distance between them and the other cars, better equipment or slower speeds until they got their vehicle fixed up better.

When I was about eight years old I witnessed an old man try to drive away from my grand parents house (all the old folks that day were drunk and all the old folks didn’t think a thing about driving drunk). He totaled out two vehicles right there in front of me. 100 feet away. Fortunately nobody was killed and the other driver walked away but he was worse off of course and without a car. A month or two later that drunk was out again without a thought to other people’s safety.

Keep the laws the way they are and strengthen the penalties. Seizing vehicles is a great start. So is mandatory jail sentences for second time offenders. Yes it’s going to rock their world financially but if that is what it takes to keep somebody’s wife and kids alive then so be it. Okay the kids are going to pay a price but they’ll learn something from it too.

Plan ahead drinkers! Nothing says you can’t spend the night drinking at your friend’s house – and sleep there. Nothing says you can’t tie one on at your house. However, if you go out, then you don’t need to be driving home after more than about two drinks – period. I don’t care what that does to the restaurant businesses. Maybe it is time for them to figure out some virgin drink recipes that are more exciting than the alcoholic ones or restrict sales to two drinks to everyone.

And FWIW we stay at home on the nights where the drunks are likely to be out in force.

Lastly I would have no problem with anti-cellphone or texting laws. The first ones they will have to “convert” though are the local law enforcement b/c I see them using a phone while driving 95%+ of the time.

I don’t own a cellphone. I use my wife’s about once or twice a month, never while driving.

Why should this even be a question? Are the feelings of a bereaved family more important than the rights we hold dear? I would argue that, instead, one should explain to the families of our soldiers who died defending those rights that their losses were pissed away by people who didn’t value them.

I have every sympathy for victims. As I said earlier that’s why I don’t drink and drive. But this elevation of victims to some sort of extra-deserving status is a sickness that will eventually kill our society.

There’s a saying: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” I’ll agree to your 0.00 limit if you agree to the same penalties for

– anyone who works a labor intensive double shift (16 hours). They should be REQUIRED to take a cab home.
– anyone taking anti-depressants.
– roadside blood testing for EVERY accident. Get the potheads, the oxi-addicts, AND the drunks.

But, of course, NONE of the above will happen. Because in the real world, a confused senior citizen can mow down a dozen+ people at a farmers market and get probation.

MADD started off in the right direction, but have become neo-prohibitionist and unfocused. Pch101 has a point. The problem is NOT 0.08 drinkers. It’s habitual drunks and dangerous drivers. Hell, I think the state of NY doesn’t even consider multiple misdemeanor ability impaired convictions (0.05 to 0.08) upgradable.

Why doesn’t MADD focus on jailing career drunks? Maybe because that costs money (and earns them nothing).

The statistics suggest that this is blatantly false.

Yes it is MADD’s problem, because a look at their agenda and what they have advocated shows an intent to make a criminal out of the person who has one or two drinks.

psharjinian: If people could exercise that kind of judgment, we wouldn’t have the issue. But as the statistics note, they can’t.

The statistics show that majority of the people who are involved in drunk driving accidents are hard-core drunks. They are driving with blood alcohol content levels of as much as 2.0.

A person doesn’t reach that level after one or two drinks, unless he or she is filling up a Big Gulp cup with vodka.

psharjinian: I agree that MADD has gotten off-base (the recent stupidity over GTA4 was enlightening), but don’t hate the message because you don’t like the messenger.

View the criticism as an attempt to get the messenger back on track.

Same goes for the drinking age. Unless someone can give me good proof that these numbers are arbitrarily arrived at via capricious eeney-meeney-miney-moe’ery I’m going to call party foul on that claim.

MADD’s mission was to stop drinking and driving, because obviously it wasn’t going to stop itself. Before MADD, the problem was systemic, and the message wasn’t getting through. By forcing a low limit and zero-tolerance enforcement, the problem is pretty much gone.

Watch an episode of “Mad Men”. It’s enlightening–and terrifying–to realize that people like that were (are?) on the road.

I also question the mantra, “Don’t drink and drive.” If it is intended to mean, “Don’t drive after an evening of continuous drinking”, I agree. But not if it is intended to apply to one glass of wine or a 12 ounce beer with dinner.

That’s not really MADD’s problem. If people could exercise that kind of judgment, we wouldn’t have the issue. But as the statistics note, they can’t. People, taken as a group, not on an individual level, have trouble with grey areas like this. They need a simplistic message, not a complex one.

And credit where credit’s due, the simple message is working. Casual drinking and driving is way, way down.

I agree that MADD has gotten off-base (the recent stupidity over GTA4 was enlightening), but don’t hate the message because you don’t like the messenger.

I’d like to see the police take a harder line on offenders, myself. Obviously, license suspension doesn’t work, and prison sentences don’t work. I’m starting to think seizure and sale of assets (like, oh, an offender’s car) is starting to sound reasonable.

I also question the mantra, “Don’t drink and drive.” If it is intended to mean, “Don’t drive after an evening of continuous drinking”, I agree. But not if it is intended to apply to one glass of wine or a 12 ounce beer with dinner.

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

Here’s one excerpt.

The founding president of MADD, Candy Lightner, left in disgust from the organization that she herself created because of its change in goals. “It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned,” she says. “I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.” 5 Ms. Lightner has emphasized the importance of distinguishing between alcohol and drinking on one hand and drunk driving on the other. 6

Ms. Lightner has apparently put her finger on the problem when she says that if MADD really wants to save lives, it will go after the real problem drivers. 7

Just basically confirms what many have thought for years – that MADD has morphed from a public awareness campaign into a huge PAC that won’t be happy until they achieve a total ban on alcohol. Ignition interlocks, roadblocks, you name it. If they were to achieve that goal, they’d move on to something else. You can bet that they won’t say they’ve made their impact and pack up and go away.

These .08-type limits are an arbitrary way to enforce a penalty before a problem has actually occurred. Sort of like Minority Report. You had the potential to do something, so we’re going to smack you with the same penalty as we would if you actually did it.

Don’t get me started on the whole minimum drinking age thing that, surprise surprise, MADD is also against changing. It’s all arbitrary bullshit. MADD is simply a too-powerful “cure” in search of a problem.

Exactly. When I read accident reports in the local paper, the drunk drivers inevitably have a above blood alcohol content (BAC) of 1.5 or above. It’s not the person who has one or two drinks who is is going out and mowing down innocents. Arresting and prosecuting them is a waste of law-enforcement time and resources.

psharjinian: They’re amazed that they have to prove that they’re angels walking the earth, but most any heterosexual can manage the trick no matter how much of a waste they are.

It’s not any easier for heterosexual couples to adopt. Do you really believe that couples walk into the adoption agency and walk out with a child the same day just because they are straight? My friends who have adopted children can cure you of this notion.

I’d like to see you say that to a bereaved family-member of a victim. I dearly would.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you cannot live up to your responsibilities as a holder of said privilege, you do not get to keep it.

I understand your anger. But may I suggest you read some of the links in the article? There are two sides to this story. At least.

I think the issue is that ABI does see MADD’s efforts as, in some ways, curtailing their members’ revenue and wants restrictions lifted. MADD’s take is “If it saves a life, it’s worth it”. I tend to agree with MADD on this one.

The problem is, how reasonable is reasonable? As ABI points out, 0.08 may not be functionally impaired for all drivers, but that it might be for some–and those for whom it is are not guaranteed to act on it. Never mind that a large amount of the problem drinking doesn’t happen in licensed establishments and that roadblocks really are the only way to, tactically, get these people off the road.

Again, ABI’s issue is that if you scare off enough people from drinking and driving, they wont drink.

I understand your anger. But may I suggest you read some of the links in the article? There are two sides to this story. At least.

One thing I know for hard and sure fact. I have been involved in 5 auto accidents. Want to know whose fault and whether alcohol was involved. None were my fault and all were caused by an inebriated driver. Bogeyman maybe, but not in my world.

Being responsible to others is part and parcel of being human on this planet. The general public should not be subjected to the irresponsible attacks of the inebriated-especially when it is already illegal.

If not than STFU and let MADD do their job!