Equating MADD with "mothers against guns"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost tracker

D.A.M.M. ("Drunks Against Mad Mothers") :image035:

---

Hey, I started that organization decades ago!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randian

I don't see any sense to it. Somebody sleeping in a parked car isn't driving, ergo they shouldn't be charged with drunk driving. Penalizing people for doing the right thing is incredibly stupid. Law should have incentives to do the right thing, not disincentives.

Instead of just sleeping it off in the car, knowing they could still get a DUI charge they'll try to drive home instead, increasing the danger to everyone else. That's the kind of intended consequence a temperance movement would shoot for. The goal is to maximize the penalty for drinking per se, reducing danger to others is secondary and can be sacrificed to the primary goal.

---

This is well OT, but I think the idea is that too many will sober up a tad and then try to drive while still legally drunk, so get them
off the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

This is well OT, but I think the idea is that too many will sober up a tad and then try to drive while still legally drunk, so get them off the street.

---

Then why not wait until they actually try to drive? An easy score for a cop to wait and watch.

OT, I have no doubt that mothers against guns just wants to ban guns, just like MADD no longer really cares about driving and just wants to ban (or make terribly inconvenient) drinking alcohol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost tracker

D.A.M.M. ("Drunks Against Mad Mothers") :image035:

---

When I was in college, I think I was a member of that or something...it's all kind of fuzzy though.:wink:

GREAT = Gun Rights Enthusiasts Aganist Threats

Great insight. I like the fact that MADD punished the driver, not the car. So responsible citizens can still drive, and bad citizens go to jail.

Still, MADD must keep their agenda rolling to keep the money coming. .10 was too low a threshold,.08 is ridiculous, especially knowing that they want NO ONE to drink ANY Alcohol ANYWHERE. Even in your own home. Still to just set a limit that applies to anyone regardless of their sex,size,maturity and tolerance is all about the money gained from our governments by way of fines and other monetary punishments. Flame if you want,but I've seen enough of this over the years to know. We really don't want them or anyone like them to jump on the bandwagon. I do see the OP's opinion though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost tracker

D.A.M.M. ("Drunks Against Mad Mothers") :image035:

---

D.A.M. <--- Mothers Against Dyslexia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gasmitty

- In nearly all states, the MADD influence reduced the threshhold of intoxication from 0.01% BAL to 0.08%.

---

You mean reduced from .10% to .08%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brad426

Very good post.

Just a point of order, I believe you meant from .1 to .08, not from .01 to .08.

---

Correct indeed! I'm a numbers guy, but you probably wouldn't want me doing your taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RKflorida

Great insight. I like the fact that MADD punished the driver, not the car. So responsible citizens can still drive, and bad citizens go to jail.

---

I see the OP and his idea, it is a good one. I also deplore MADD because it went from raising awareness of drunk driving to joining the legislative industry. Its goals were met long ago but if they stop, well, they have to find new jobs, and the easiest legislative relations job ever is over. Not hard to paint a legislator in the corner when pushing "common sense laws to get tough on drunks..."

Now we have administrative checkpoints where innocent drivers are stopped, interrogated, and or given tickets for non primary offenses. Citizens arrested on potentially career ending charges who lose their license without due process regardless of disposition of their criminal case for "intent to drive intoxicated" while sleeping in their cars, or criminalized for innocently having a happy hour beer with some coworkers.

I think we maybe should find a different model, as to me MADD is a lot of what is wrong with the anti gun establishment.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randian

In some states you can't do it in private either.

---

It's a crazy world...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BugDude

Outstanding analytical thought process, and you're SPOT ON!!!

---

That's asking a little too much. She would actually have to think in orded to do that.