Monday, January 13, 2003
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
MOCKING M.A.D.D.: InstaPundit and TalkLeft
MOCKING M.A.D.D.: InstaPundit and TalkLeft have been arguing that Mothers Against Drunk Driving, having succeeded in stigmatizing that offense, is now going overboard. This includes pushing overly strict statutory blood alcohol levels that do little to contribute to the public good, and calling for public officials to resign for first-time DUI offenses. As TalkLeft puts it, "MADD has moved into dangerous territory and needs to be reigned in. Or, since that's unlikely, ridiculed."
I believe the ridicule has begun -- in the comic pages, of course.
UPDATE: Alert reader J.S. informs me that there is an actual organization devoted to what is lampooned in today's Foxtrot, but that it's likely a student-perpetrated hoax. So it's either intentionally or unintentionally hilarious.posted by Dan on 01.13.03 at 09:51 AM
MADD has gone nuts... They already did what they set out to do and now there setting goals that would ruin socirty if they were accompished.
Phil LaBoonposted by: breathalizer key chain on 01.13.03 at 09:51 AM [permalink]
There are zealous advocates on both sides of the issue, and both do make good points. However, it is interesting when one side of the DUI issue takes matters too far, as is done in Arizona often times, and curtails innocent freedoms like driving down the road unmolested by Arizona law enforcement. Many of these issues are discussed at my website, href="http://www.duiarizona.com">http://www.duiarizona.com, while there are many good counterpoints on the various MADD drunk driving websites. The best thing that we, as citizens, can do is keep an open mind and judge eachother based on facts, not prejudices.posted by: dui arizona on 01.13.03 at 09:51 AM [permalink]
DWI, drunk driving, DUI, and a license to drink.
Copyright: 1993-2004 © Bruce Alm
The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.
This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;
If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.
There could also be many other positive results;
families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we've all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.
This new law could go something like this:
Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.
For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?
What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.
This permit doesn't seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.
Most people of drinking age have a driver's license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don't drive.
This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
Would this be a violation of rights?
There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.
This could be a good saying, "If a person who doesn't know how to drive shouldn't have a license to drive, a person who doesn't know how to drink shouldn't have a license to drink."
Here are some other pluses to this idea:
A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.
The need for A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could be greatly diminished as well.
What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.
Even though A.A. members as a group don't become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.
A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said "One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S.."
Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.
What ever happened to the skid row drunk?
Post a Comment: