Tater

September 7th, 2011 at 1:10 AM ^

Easy.  They scapegoat alcohol for all of the world's evils.  They have enabled the courts to put drivers in a situation where they don't have to actually be drunk to be prosecuted and convicted for "drunk driving."  Drivers who can navigate just fine with a BAL that is too high are pronounced too drunk to drive and fined buttloads of money.  

The old way was the fair way.  You either pass your sobriety test or fail it.  Some people can drive better at .020 than others at .002.  I have known examples of both.  There should be no penalty for a high BAL unless the person fails the field test.  Then it should be used as corraborating evidence like it used to be.  

Before MADD turned DUI into a cash cow, impaired used to be .010 and DUI was .015, and they didn't test until the person failed the field test.  People did fine that way.  Now, anyone leaving a bar is an easy ticket for a cop trying to fulfill his quota.  

As for them actually doing anything constructive, they don't.  All they do is whine, complain, and lobby.  They have ruined a lot of lives.  

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

PurpleStuff

September 7th, 2011 at 1:53 AM ^

I agree that most active MADD members (who have usually lost a loved one) are the sympathetic figures here.  But most people who get a DUI haven't ended a lot of (or any) lives.  Neither did the much larger group of people who at one time or another had a few drinks and drove home without ever getting pulled over. 

I think the important part of Tater's point is that law enforcement has taken up the MADD mantle because it allows them to make lots of money busting people.  It also fuels a booming, state-funded "alcohol recovery" industry that folks are required to attend and pay for for long periods of time. 

The question isn't "Is drunk driving good?"  The question is "Does it make sense to take people who haven't harmed anyone but are engaged in risky behavior and charge them loads of money and throw them in jail in large numbers."  I think there are a lot more efficient ways to combat the risk of drunk driving than simply having the cops looking to arrest folks (on both the automobile manufacturer's end and the bar industry's end).  Texting and talking on cell phones are also extremely dangerous when driving (if not more so), but people would balk if the legal system started locking people up who didn't get in an accident, fining them loads of cash, and forcing them to take months long classes based on preventing them from ever using cellular phones.  The reason is because MADD and law enforcement have combined to stigmatize one behavior to the point that we look on the people who do it as criminals.

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

Woodhard M. Sp…

September 7th, 2011 at 2:08 AM ^

Easy solution to all this rigamarole Don't drink anything and then drive, which is best for everybody, and also what the law probably should be Don't get all angar at MADD. They didn't ruin any lives. "I'm an alcoholic so I can drive drunker than everybody else. The law is so unfair." Balderdash, pure.

Joined: 09/06/2011

MGoPoints: 44

profitgoblue

September 7th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^

I hope you're joking,  If not, this is the dumbest post I've read in a long, long time.  How about you have a family member killed by a drunk driver (like I did) and then watch the murderer get off after a very short jail stint and see how you deal with it.  I suspect that you'd seek out a support group that made sure it doesn't happen to someone else's loved one.

If you were joking, I apologize for singling you out.  If not, I've located several bad names to call you but will censor myself.

 

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 19559

profitgoblue

September 7th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^

I generally appreciate you, Tater, but this post of yours is obnoxious.  Your assertion that MADD ruins lives is laughable, at best.  At its worst, MADD is a very important support group for families that lost loved ones to drunk drivers.  Maybe study up on it a bit, sit in on a meeting, and then report back after you're more educated on that aspect of the drinking-and-driving issue.  The statutory laws are simply one portion and you can "blame" your elected officials for it if you so choose.

 

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 19559

JimLahey

September 7th, 2011 at 7:03 AM ^

You can complain about the laws being unfair all you want, and yes some people are unfairly charged even when they aren't drunk. However, it is a necessary evil IMO to catch the people who drive around drunk consistently. I can't tell you how many people I see that drive drunk several times a month. Everytime I see it I hope in my head that they get caught and fucked by the long dick of the law.

I have no sympathy if you have more than 3-4 beers and get caught and charged. Talk about fairness all you want, everyone knows the laws. If you choose to ignore them then you choose to risk the very well known consequences that come with said risk.

Too many people are hurt and killed as a result of drunk driving. If a few semi-innocent people are charged in order to save some lives, then is it well worth it.

Joined: 01/18/2011

MGoPoints: 2478

GunnersApe

September 7th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^

I got mine back when it was still not that big of a deal  (‘90’s),  I went 1000 and 1 and paid the price the one time I left the bar early. Lessons learned, leave at closing so there is a glut of drunks on the road and your percentage drops (mind set a long time ago). Now it’s proven that cell phones and texting are just as dangerous as booze, and they affect my drive at all time of day not just at night. Now if we can get the drunk guys whose texting, that sombitch needs help. 

Joined: 11/19/2009

MGoPoints: 6930

Mitch Cumstein

September 7th, 2011 at 9:19 AM ^

I agree with you on the cell phone thing.  My gf is always on her phone while driving.  I bitch at her incessently about it, but seriously, if you're one of those 'buzzed driving is drunk driving people', you should not be using a phone while driving. 

Joined: 10/02/2009

MGoPoints: 14072

PurpleStuff

September 7th, 2011 at 2:19 PM ^

I'm not positive on the stats, but something like well over 50% of traffic fatalities involve people who simply aren't wearing a seat belt (a higher percentage than involve a drunk driver). 

Yet the campaign to prevent that risky beavior is "Click It or Ticket", not "Click It or We're Throwing Your Ass in Jail". 

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

Blue in Yarmouth

September 7th, 2011 at 9:01 AM ^

Driving after you drink is a choice and one that is easily avoided. There are many ways to avoid doing it, not the least of which is don't drink. If you choose to drink, get someone else to drive...anyone else. If you want to tempt fate and drive after you have been drinking and get caught, tough shit. 

I was on call two weeks ago and had an MVA that involved 6 people, three in each car. The driver of the car that caused the accident was drunk, but swore he was't and the alcohol had nothing to do with the accident. He was the only one that escaped the accident without injury. Two people in the other car died and the other three people had serious injuries. 

It's easy for you young guys to sit on here and complain about how unfair the law is and cry because you want to be able to have your few beers at the bar and drive yourselves home, but it is guys like you, who know you are okay to drive no matter what your BAL is, that get people killed. If you think I'm lying look at the statistics...what age group comprises most of the drinking and driving charges and drunk driving accidents? 

Get a fucking taxi.

/rant

Joined: 02/18/2009

MGoPoints: 6527