[elkfersupper]

Well, there you have it. A major U.S. newspaper advocating a return to prohibition.

MADD should be proud.

[BlueStateDepression]

Well maybe you would be more accepting if it was worded this way :

Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drive when you have had any alcohol to drink.


I doubt you will but it was worth a try.....

[Alberta's Child]

This reminds me of a colorful conversation I had with someone from MADD who called me on the telephone seeking donations for MADD. Let's just say I'm no longer on their fund-raising solicitation list. LOL.

"Drunk driving" isn't nearly the problem it is often made out to be, and the issue would nearly disappear if people were simply prosecuted for violating motor vehicle laws on a regular basis regardless of whether they were sober or drunk at the time.

[LibertarianInExile]

I think they should just ban cars in Massachussetts. High time those bastards should have to use the mass transit everyone else has to pay for. And think of all the green space they could reclaim!

MADD is out of its mind. And cops angling for a reason to bust anyone walking out of a bar love them for it.

[dfwddr]

I really don't see how they are suggesting prohibition. I beleive they are talking about driving after drinking.

[WillamShakespeare]

Drunken driving is a problem in Massachusetts.

And so are drunk Senators.

[FreedomCalls]

"Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive a car."

Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drink any alcohol and write for a newspaper.

[microgood]

I am not sure what problem that is suppossed to be solved by this, but it sure isn't Drunken Driving. It is kind of like going from .1 to .08, no reduction in drunken driving, just more harassment of law abiding citizens.

What frustrates the nanny state is that they cannot stop the habitual drunks who blow real high and ignore all the laws anyway, so they tighten the screws to those who they know will obey the law. It's extremely childish and extremely ineffective as well.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

I notice nobody ever talks about why blood alcohol levels have been used to charge "drunk" drivers.

BAC was put in place because a large portion of the folks stopped for DWIs passed all of the field agility and other tests, and had to be released, even though the officers could smell/tell the subject had been drinking.

Now if we are interested in "safe" driving why would you arrest someone who was driving OK?

Oh yeah, they "might" get in an accident. So in the interest of public safety we must make it easy for the officers in the field to arrest those drivers suspected of DWI.

I'm not really against using BAC as a standard, but, it is a legitimate question, by reasonable people, to ask just exactly what is "drunk"?

This is the one situation I agree with arresting folks if there is any doubt, because this, (DWI), is a matter of life and death.

[TChad]

Penalties for first offense DUI are serious enough in some states to ruin the life of the offender. Beyond the $3,000 - $5,000 in legal fees and fines, the more serious penalty will be loss of a driver's license for 3-6 months. This can easily lead to loss of employment and even bankruptcy -- for a first offense, without any damage done to people or property. Some states do not permit any driving at all on a suspended license, even driving to work.

The penalty experienced by someone who loses his driving license depends on something irrelevant to the offense: how far the offender lives from his workplace, markets, etc. Someone who walks to work may expereience only minor inconvenience, while someone who drives many miles to work and can't get a ride has a personal disaster, plus a substantial incentive to drive illegally. Isn't the punishment supposed to be proportional to the crime?

I talked to one man who had been arrested for first offense DUI, lost his license, but found himself in a situation where it was necessary to him to drive. He was caught driving, and a judge gave him six months in jail. He lost everything -- house, job, etc. He talked freely about the appeal of suicide. All for drinking a too much at a party and then driving once when he shouldn't have. I had no way to verify his story, but I talked to an attorney who said that it was very plausible.

DUI at high blood alcohol levels is a serious offense that merits penalties that serve as effective deterrents. But first offense DUI should not destroy the offender's life, and necessary driving should be permitted.

[TexasTransplant]

As for the title of this article the answer is....


"TAKE OUT THE PROFIT MOTIVE" for MADD, City County or Parish, and State and we will be way ahead of what we have now. It is nothing but strongarm dirty Money motivation and it seriously divides us on many levels.

TT

[FierceDraka]

They can have my liquor when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

[JTN]

Thank you, MADD!!!

elkfersupper, you should start a ping list.

[CSM]

Author: Randy S. Chapman

http://www.malawyersweekly.com/boe.htm

Chapman is the president and CEO of the law firm of Chapman & Chapman, which concentrates in criminal defense work. He is currently on the Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as well as the Superior Court/Massachusetts Bar Association Bench/Bar Committee. Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court at the request of Bar Counsel appointed him a Commissioner. A former prosecutor in Essex County, he is currently legal analyst for New England Cable News. Chapman is a graduate of U. Mass Amherst and Suffolk University Law School.

---

Kinda gives perspective to the article.....

[AlexandriaDuke]

I just love this:

http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issues/07_02/madd_dog.htm

[steve-b]

Drunken driving is a problem in Massachusetts.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Someone should come up with a standardized fitness to drive test. This would catch the drunks, as well as the highs, sicks, and tireds.

[wolfcreek]

I don't have to worry because I married my designated driver.

[ml1954]

The Prohibitionists are getting bolder and bolder.

If they were really concerned about impaired drivers and highway accidents, injuries, and deaths, they'd be advocating stringent tests on reaction time (to get a license) and vision (to get a license). They'd also be vigorously lobbying for laws about cell phone usage, conversations between the driver and passengers, eating and drinking beverages while driving (not demon alcohol containing, of course), radios with buttons, arguments with spouses, stress levels, fatigue levels, blood sugar levels, and anything else that might impair or distract the driver, take two hands off the wheel, or take eyes off the road. And they'd want laws with punitive punishments when driving under any of these conditions. They'd be advocating that people with medical conditions that might interfere with their ability to drive should not get licenses.

But, they are not, of course, because the real target is 'demon alcohol'.

[WildTurkey]

Well, there you have it. A major U.S. newspaper advocating a return to prohibition.

It is considered good manners to read your own article before posting falsely about the content. Or was it your intent to distort hoping most would not read the article and believe your post.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

I see these threads all of the time, and I am sick of them. Will someone here please outline to me why drunk driving laws are stupid and intrusive?

Just so ya know, a drunk driver killed a couple of relatives of mine. His nth time he was caught, hard telling how many times he wasn't caught. They were killed one Labor Day weekend, he was home long before Christmas.