Replies

MADD has done more damage to this country and our Constitution than any terrorist attack or combination of attacks ever could.

This frantic rhetoric tells me all I need to know

Thanks to MADD we have seriously restricted our Constitutional rights. The SC held that the checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment, then essentially said "but so what?" We no longer have the right to a presumption of innocence, nor a right to a trial by jury. This is largely thanks to the efforts of the neo-prohibitionists at MADD.

I have done a great deal of research, and have come to the conclusion that the statistics are over-hyped.

I've seen the victims first-hand. Your research appears to only be from ideologically biased sites.

Do you know what qualifies as an alcohol-related accident? It's .01, and that is whether the driver with the .01 was at fault or not. If you have a beer on the way home, stop at a red light and are rear-ended by a stone sober driver, then that is listed as an alcohol-related accident. This goes for alcohol-related fatalities as well. If one driver has a .01 BAC, then any death resulting from a crash in which that driver is involved will be listed as an alcohol-related fatality, whether that driver was at fault or not.

We no longer have the right to a presumption of innocence, nor a right to a trial by jury.

What the hell are you talking about? DWI trials are held in front of juries all the time with a presumption of innocence. Trust me, I know. I've seen enough of them.

The fact that juries don't tend to believe DWI defendants does not mean that the prosecution didn't meet their burden.

If one driver has a .01 BAC, then any death resulting from a crash in which that driver is involved will be listed as an alcohol-related fatality, whether that driver was at fault or not.

If anyone "involved" in the accident has a BAC of 0.01 or greater, it's "alcohol related". Even if the only people with non-zero BAC were PASSENGERS. Basically, the goal of MADD is to define as many accidents as "alcohol related" as they can, even though the broader they make their reach, the less alcohol actually has to do with most of them.

A BAC level of 0.08 has a vaguely detectable statistical effect on driving, but it's nowhere near as severe as the effect of 0.15. Indeed, it pales in comparison with many other risk factors that are considered 'acceptable'. Is there any sane reason why someone who is alert but has a 0.08BAC should be treated more severely than someone with a BAC of 0.00 who's practically asleep at the wheel?