MADD’s New Focus: Prohibition

[Caine]

I don't believe I've posted a site in this thread.

Ummm... did you bother checking who I quoted before responding? Durrrr....

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Your website poped up as a trojan dude.

I tried using BOTH browsers and no trojan was detected for me. Dont know why its doing that for you.

 

[samsmart]

**** MADD. I hate that organization. And of course they were going to go this route; they want to have zero drunk driving deaths. The only way to get that is to seek out prohibition.

If Prohibition didn't get rid of drinkers and drunks, how could it get rid of drunk driving?

 

[Ikari]

If Prohibition didn't get rid of drinkers and drunks, how could it get rid of drunk driving?

Yeah, that's true. You probably still couldn't make it zero. Still the point remains valid. If you have alcohol and cars as legal devices, you're going to get some amount of drunk driving. That's all there is to it. You cannot say "we don't want to make alcohol illegal, we just don't want there to be any drunk driving" as a stated, achievable goal. It's not achievable.

 

[hazlnut]

Ummm... did you bother checking who I quoted before responding? Durrrr....

My bad.

sorry:3oops::3oops:

 

[Caine]

If Prohibition didn't get rid of drinkers and drunks, how could it get rid of drunk driving?

It won't. And thats why MADD isn't trying to work prohibition of alcohol back onto the books.

 

[Caine]

Yeah, that's true. You probably still couldn't make it zero. Still the point remains valid. If you have alcohol and cars as legal devices, you're going to get some amount of drunk driving. That's all there is to it. You cannot say "we don't want to make alcohol illegal, we just don't want there to be any drunk driving" as a stated, achievable goal. It's not achievable.

What is wrong with having a goal that we all know to be unachievable?

Do I need to bring up all the unachievable goals that some people have?

"Eliminate Poverty"
"Eliminate Terrorism"
"Eliminate Domestic Violence"
"Eliminate ......."
You get the idea.

Saying that they don't want there to be people driving after having drinks does not = prohibition.

 

[jallman]

“The biggest problem in reducing drunk driving fatalities now consists of the hard core of alcoholic drivers who repeatedly drive with BAC’s of .15 or higher,” says Dr. David Hanson, professor emeritus at the State University of New York/Potsdam. “But MADD has now decided to go after social drinkers and to eliminate driving after drinking any amount of alcohol beverage. This change appears to reflect the influence of a growing neo-prohibitionist movement within MADD.”

**** MADD...that organization is one of the most dangerous groups seeking to undermine our freedom to associate and just ****ing enjoy ourselves. They have succeeded, by leveraging every tragic death as political capital in a steady campaign to convince the public that alcohol is an elixir of death. But then, who is going to stand up and tell a woman who lost a child that she's being hysterical even 15 years after the fact when they are testifying in front of Congress that alcohol "done killed mah baaaaaabay"?

And they know this...and they use it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

What is wrong with having a goal that we all know to be unachievable?

Do I need to bring up all the unachievable goals that some people have?

"Eliminate Poverty"
"Eliminate Terrorism"
"Eliminate Domestic Violence"
"Eliminate ......."
You get the idea.

Saying that they don't want there to be people driving after having drinks does not = prohibition.

Let's not kid ourselves though Cain, MADD was a decent group in the founding years but has swung hard towards vengeance and draconian penalties in the last couple of decades. While I think everyone can agree that any kind of impaired driving is dangerous and should be avoided(this includes sleep deprived and distracted driving) and some should not be legal(excluding sleep deprived and some mild distractions) the penalties and zero tolerance policies that have come about are too harsh.

For instance, taking minimum age and BAC requirements away from states and federalizing them was not a good policy, as well; zero tolerance policies take away yet another area of discretion from officers and may punish people who had a rare slip up. There is absolutely no reason for an advocacy group to have that much power without some kind of check and if anything it will create problems.

 

[Ikari]

What is wrong with having a goal that we all know to be unachievable?

Do I need to bring up all the unachievable goals that some people have?

"Eliminate Poverty"
"Eliminate Terrorism"
"Eliminate Domestic Violence"
"Eliminate ......."
You get the idea.

Saying that they don't want there to be people driving after having drinks does not = prohibition.

OK fair enough. I guess in and of itself, there is no harm in just having unachievable goals. But the methodology by which you try to get as close as you can to that unachievable is important as well. I think MADD is more than happy to use emotional rhetoric and argument to justify the overreaching penalties and use of government to obtain their goals or get as close as they can to them. And I think that's rather dangerous.

 

[Caine]

Let's not kid ourselves though Cain, MADD was a decent group in the founding years but has swung hard towards vengeance and draconian penalties in the last couple of decades. While I think everyone can agree that any kind of impaired driving is dangerous and should be avoided(this includes sleep deprived and distracted driving) and some should not be legal(excluding sleep deprived and some mild distractions) the penalties and zero tolerance policies that have come about are too harsh.

For instance, taking minimum age and BAC requirements away from states and federalizing them was not a good policy, as well; zero tolerance policies take away yet another area of discretion from officers and may punish people who had a rare slip up. There is absolutely no reason for an advocacy group to have that much power without some kind of check and if anything it will create problems.

See, there you go with your misconceptions......

Last I recall, I still have discretion, and have used it on many occasions.

I usually don't arrest .08 and .09s (on scene, via a alco-sensor). So there goes your "zero tolerance".

Of course, this has more to do with the fact that the judges in the county I work are so liberal that they don't understand the difference between 'DRUNK' and 'IMPAIRED'.
Too often judges need to be able to see the person unable to speak and stand in order to convict. Then on the other hand you have judges who will convict much easier.

My only complaint is that the standards are not evenly set, too much is too dependant upon the judge one has in court on a particular day.

But I digress.

This thread wasn't about whether MADD has lost its way. This thread was started with the accusation that MADD is attempting to work PROHIBITION OF ALCOHOL on the books again.

This notion is not supported anywhere. And people keep ignoring that just for the purpose of talking **** about MADD. I get it, you don't like MADD. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can make **** up about them.

 

[Caine]

OK fair enough. I guess in and of itself, there is no harm in just having unachievable goals. But the methodology by which you try to get as close as you can to that unachievable is important as well. I think MADD is more than happy to use emotional rhetoric and argument to justify the overreaching penalties and use of government to obtain their goals or get as close as they can to them. And I think that's rather dangerous.

I don't think its dangerous at all.

Its not like government isn't being used in all those other things Ive mentioned.

 

[Ikari]

I don't think its dangerous at all.

Its not like government isn't being used in all those other things Ive mentioned.

And in some cases it's abused. I think the danger isn't in "is it reasonable to use government for X" arguments. But rather when a subject has been so emotionalized that we allow arguments for overreaching government. That's where the real danger lies. MADD is a very emotional group and are willing to use whatever tactics they want to get the desired effect. But emotionalized arguments are rarely good arguments, particularly when discussing the overuse of government in policing or punishing certain crimes.

 

[LaMidRighter]

See, there you go with your misconceptions......

Last I recall, I still have discretion, and have used it on many occasions.

Fair enough. MADD is abusive here and had zero tolerance implemented in La. so basically if it's proven an officer dismissed a suspected OWI offender then said officer is subject to termination. I may have localized that too much.

I usually don't arrest .08 and .09s (on scene, via a alco-sensor). So there goes your "zero tolerance".

You're reasonable, and I'm sure it's a judgement call based on behavior after the stop. Still, I find anything less than .10 is harsh as a standard.

Of course, this has more to do with the fact that the judges in the county I work are so liberal that they don't understand the difference between 'DRUNK' and 'IMPAIRED'.
Too often judges need to be able to see the person unable to speak and stand in order to convict. Then on the other hand you have judges who will convict much easier.

True. No argument on that.

My only complaint is that the standards are not evenly set, too much is too dependant upon the judge one has in court on a particular day.

There's only one in my area, she specializes and is a hanging judge.

But I digress.

This thread wasn't about whether MADD has lost its way. This thread was started with the accusation that MADD is attempting to work PROHIBITION OF ALCOHOL on the books again.

Fair enough. But I see them going that way eventually considering they seem to tighten their stance constantly.

This notion is not supported anywhere. And people keep ignoring that just for the purpose of talking **** about MADD. I get it, you don't like MADD. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can make **** up about them.

That's true, the story here doesn't support it. Still though it is a topic worth continuing IMO.

 

[Ikari]

There's only one in my area, she specializes and is a hanging judge.

There's a judge in Boulder who is notorious for handing out jail time for first time DUI convictions.

 

[LaMidRighter]

There's a judge in Boulder who is notorious for handing out jail time for first time DUI convictions.

Like Cain said, it all depends on the judge. One thing about my parish(county) is that all judges are elected, MADD exploits that and is present at all intoxicated driving hearings, if a judge shows any leniency they'll do whatever they can to ensure that judge is never elected again. That's one of the tactics you mentioned, they have no problems creating an election "hit list" to get their agenda done.

 

[Caine]

There's a judge in Boulder who is notorious for handing out jail time for first time DUI convictions.

I disagree for standard run of the mill DWI arrests.

I would agree with her on offenses where there are a high number of aggravating factors.

 

[Caine]

Like Cain said, it all depends on the judge. One thing about my parish(county) is that all judges are elected, MADD exploits that and is present at all intoxicated driving hearings, if a judge shows any leniency they'll do whatever they can to ensure that judge is never elected again. That's one of the tactics you mentioned, they have no problems creating an election "hit list" to get their agenda done.

Defense Attorneys get involved in this very same thing. Police agencies do not. Neither do the District Attorneys.
So, someone needs to speak on behalf of those who want to see people get convicted.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Defense Attorneys get involved in this very same thing. Police agencies do not. Neither do the District Attorneys.
So, someone needs to speak on behalf of those who want to see people get convicted.

I'm not blaming the police, they're just doing their jobs. I put that solely on groups that want to up the penalties using tactics that aren't exactly ethical.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

May as well name it "Mothers Against Coping with Loss in a Meaningful Fashion."