Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition
FOX ^ | 10/06/05 | swampsniper

Posted on 10/05/2005 9:59:55 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER

When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

By Radley Balko

This fall Mothers Against Drunk Driving marks its 25th anniversary. The organization certainly has much to celebrate: Deaths from drunk driving are down more than 35 percent since the early 1980s. We no longer chuckle at the bumbling drunk who can barely get his key into the ignition — we scorn him. Hopefully, we arrest him, too.

Unfortunately, MADD has come to outlive and outgrow its original mission. By the mid-1990s, deaths from drunk driving began to level off, after 15 years of progress. The sensible conclusion to draw from this was that the occasional drunk driver had all but been eradicated. MADD's successes had boiled the problem down to a small group of hard-core alcoholics.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: balko; dwi; madd; prohibition; wodlist

1 posted on 10/05/2005 9:59:56 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
Excellent article.

MADD has fallen into the routine that many "movement" organizations do after they encounter nationwide success: instead of declaring victory and going home, they expand their focus to encompass matters that have little or nothing to do with their founding purpose, and in the process they distort and pervert the nobility of the cause for which they originally fought.

It was a good thing that MADD fought for, and won, tougher penalties for DUI offenders during the eighties; but now they have turned into a modern day version of Carrie Nation fanatics, and have no more credibility with sensible people than the NAACP or the ACLU. Their current efforts are, indeed, an attempt to "back door" another eighteenth amendment by legislative, as opposed to constitutional, means, and they are succeeding.

They've become one of those organizations--such as the aforementioned NAACP--which it becomes impossible to criticize without touching off the indignant howling of the politically correct, left and right. Critics are likened to folks who must "support" drunk driving if they take on MADD--just as those whom criticize the NAACP's cynical race-baiting are dismissed as "bigots" out of hand.

What's worse, they've got their hands in the federal till, and are using taxpayer dollars to subsidize their advocacy for what indeed is "neo-prohibition." It's a shabby coda to a once legitimate organization.

2 posted on 10/05/2005 10:24:18 PM PDT by A Jovial Cad ("It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
But it's mothers!!! For the CHIIIIIILLLLDDDRRREEEENNN!

Bump!

3 posted on 10/05/2005 10:54:19 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

MADD provides an outlet for grieving, angry mothers to get their pound of flesh. They have a good side and a bad side. Trying to prevent unnecessary deaths is good, but it's being overdone now and is turning into more of an anti-alcohol platform than anything else. Some states have gone so overboard to appease these nags that they've lowered the drunk-driving blood alcohol level to something akin to being legally drunk if you had a piece of rum cake before driving.


4 posted on 10/05/2005 11:14:34 PM PDT by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" -Pope Urban II, 1097AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
MADD provides an outlet for grieving, angry mothers to get their pound of flesh...

What do you mean?

5 posted on 10/06/2005 6:17:47 AM PDT by LongElegantLegs (also enjoy the occasional kick of a puppy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Back door prohibition ping.


6 posted on 10/06/2005 7:54:15 AM PDT by CSM (When laws are written, they apply to ALL...Not just the yucky people you don't like. - HairOfTheDog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
"MADD's biggest victory on this front was a nationwide blood-alcohol threshold of .08, down from .10. But when two-thirds of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involve blood-alcohol levels of .14 and above, and the average fatal accident occurs at .17, this move doesn't make much sense."

snip

"Sure enough, after former President Clinton signed .08 into law in 2000, drunk driving fatalities began to inch upward again — after two decades of decline..."

When the blood alcohol content level for DWI was higher, people ad a pretty good idea how many beers they could drink before they exceeded the limit, whether it was three, four, or whatever, depending on their sex and weight. Now people get popped when they've hardly had anything to drink. Dropping the level from .08% to .10% did not save lives, in fact, drunk driving fatalities went up. I can't help but wonder if people are seeing the legal levels as being so low that they aren't even trying to moderate their alcohol intake before driving. Maybe a lot of people figure they are going to be over the limit anyway so they might as well really be over the limit.
7 posted on 10/06/2005 1:32:26 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

"Dropping the level from .08% to .10% did not save lives..."

I meant to say:

"Dropping the level from .10% to .08% did not save lives..."


8 posted on 10/06/2005 1:35:20 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Thanks for the ping.

It's about time somebody started looking into and seriously criticizing this domestic terrorism organization.

9 posted on 10/06/2005 3:39:36 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
Excellent article.

Seems MADD is finally getting some journalistic inquisition.

Here's another recent adversarial article.

It's USA Today, or I would post it in full.

MADD enters 25th year with change on its mind

Interesting quote:

"You're impaired the moment you have any antihistamine in your system."

10 posted on 10/06/2005 3:58:19 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ellery

Ah yes, MADD. What a wonderful collection of sour, sanctimonious, ridiculous sows. Make no bones about it, prohibition is and always has been their ultimate goal. And of course, all for the CHILL-dren. Some weeks ago I had the misfortune of running into a coven of these hags actually collecting money(!) outside my local supermarket. I tossed a handful of pocket lint and Ballantine Ale bottlecaps into their jar and asked if they could direct me to a local tavern famous for Fifty Cent Draft Fridays. F*** these people, and their CHILL-dren to boot. What the heck do I care about their larvae? There's never been a shortage of the obnoxious little buggers in this Dog's lifetime...


11 posted on 10/06/2005 4:15:59 PM PDT by infidel dog (nearer my God to thee....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: infidel dog
Dang!

Mind if I borrow your rant to send to a friend of mine? One of the best I've seen in awhile.

12 posted on 10/06/2005 4:50:59 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: infidel dog
Image hosted by TinyPic.com
Right on Dog. You tell 'm ol' buddy
13 posted on 10/06/2005 6:00:35 PM PDT by Old Seadog (Birthdays start out being fun. But too many of them will kill you..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: infidel dog
I propose a new organization called DAMM. Drunks Against Mad Mothers.


14 posted on 10/06/2005 6:04:30 PM PDT by unixfox (AMERICA - 20 Million ILLEGALS Can't Be Wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Borrow away, Amigo.


15 posted on 10/08/2005 12:24:45 PM PDT by infidel dog (nearer my God to thee....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
dropping the level from .10% BAC to ,08% BAC did not save lives?..........Hmmm Looks like the message isn't getting through to the alcohol addicts.....in 2003 there were 42,884 people killed in motor vehicle crashes. 17,105 of these deaths or 40% were alcohol related. Tens of thousands of people injured in alcohol related crashes are not included in these numbers. If the numbers do not go down DRASTICALLY, the legal BAC will be dropped to .06%.......they are already talking about it..........But this should not be a problem as most people say their driving is not impaired after only 2 or 3 drinks...........ever notice how warm and fuzzy a lot of people get after only 1 or 2 drinks?
16 posted on 02/14/2006 3:41:01 AM PST by goldfinger1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson