More MADD madness

When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition
October 05, 2005
By Radley Balko

This fall Mothers Against Drunk Driving marks its 25th anniversary. The
organization certainly has much to celebrate: Deaths from drunk driving
are down more than 35 percent since the early 1980s. We no longer
chuckle at the bumbling drunk who can barely get his key into the
ignition - we scorn him. Hopefully, we arrest him, too.

Unfortunately, MADD has come to outlive and outgrow its original
mission. By the mid-1990s, deaths from drunk driving began to level
off, after 15 years of progress. The sensible conclusion to draw from
this was that the occasional drunk driver had all but been eradicated.
MADD's successes had boiled the problem down to a small group of
hard-core alcoholics.

It was at about this time that MADD began to move in a different
direction, one not so much aimed at reducing drunk driving fatalities
but at stripping DWI defendants of basic criminal rights. MADD also
seemed to expand its mission to one of discouraging the consumption of
alcohol in general - what critics call "neo-prohibition."

MADD's biggest victory on this front was a nationwide blood-alcohol
threshold of .08, down from .10. But when two-thirds of alcohol-related
traffic fatalities involve blood-alcohol levels of .14 and above, and
the average fatal accident occurs at .17, this move doesn't make much
sense. It's like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 to catch people
who drive 100 miles per hour. In fact, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office reviewed all the statistical data and concluded
"the evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws by
themselves result in reductions in the number and severity of crashes
involving alcohol."

Indeed, many critics of the .08 policy predicted that the new law could
make matters worse by using up scarce law enforcement resources to go
after these new "drunk" drivers who don't pose much of a threat to
highway safety. This is primarily done through the use of
highly-publicized roadblock sobriety checkpoints, in which 12 to 20
police officers stop every passing car to make sure the driver hasn't
been drinking.

The Supreme Court gave its OK to the road blocks in 1992, despite
conceding that they may violate the Fourth Amendment. Former Chief
Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the threat to public health posed
by drunk drivers was reason enough to set aside concerns about searches
without probable cause. Given that they're usually publicized, the
primary effect of these roadblocks is to deter social drinkers. The
hard-drinkers, the real threats to highway safety, know to avoid them.

Sure enough, after former President Clinton signed .08 into law in
2000, drunk driving fatalities began to inch upward again - after two
decades of decline - suggesting that the real drunk drivers were
successfully avoiding the roadblocks. Thankfully, fatalities fell again
last year, but that hardly proves MADD correct - deaths continued to
go up in those states that employ sobriety roadblocks. The
corresponding fall in fatalities in states that refuse to use the
roadblocks more than made up the difference, suggesting that, freed
from roadblock duty, law enforcement was able to work more effectively
to catch drunk drivers.

Many local police departments have noted the inefficiency of roadblocks
and given up the practice, despite the prodding from MADD and the
federal funding that comes with them.

Of course, many states and municipalities still use roadblocks. But
they use them under the guise of looking for drunk drivers, then ticket
motorists for a variety of infractions, only a small percentage of
which involve driving while intoxicated. In other words, they've become
revenue generators. A newspaper account of one recent North Carolina
checkpoint, for example, found officers ticketing motorists for more
than 45 infractions. Only three involved driving under the influence.
That's actually high. Nationwide, less than .02 percent of motorists
stopped at road blocks are arrested for DWI.

MADD has also worked to undermine the criminal protections of accused
drunk drivers - protections routinely granted to accused murderers,
rapists and other felony crimes. MADD, for example, has pushed to
impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside
breath tests than on those who take them and fail - effectively
turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear. The organization also favors
"administrative license revocation," which means the revocation of the
driver's licenses and, in some cases, the confiscation of the vehicles,
of those accused of drunken driving before they're ever given a trial.

The organization is also pushing the widespread use of ignition
interlock devices, in which a driver must blow into a tube to start his
car, then blow again every 20 minutes or so while driving. Washington
state recently passed a law allowing judges to mandate the devices in
the cars of people merely accused of drunk driving, not convicted. And
the states of New Mexico and New York have both considered legislation
that would require the devices in every car sold in-state. The New
Mexico bill is stalled in the state senate after being passed by the
house. The New York bill was initially killed, but it gains more votes
each time its determined sponsors reintroduce it.

MADD is also pushing its agenda onto family laws, including a zero
tolerance policy for divorced parents. Under the bills MADD is trying
to push through state legislatures, a parent caught consuming one beer
or glass of wine before driving could face penalties that, according to
MADD, "should include, but are not limited to" - "incarceration,"
"change of primary custody," or "termination of parental rights." This
means that if you take your kid to the game, have a beer in the third
inning, then drive home, you could very well lose your rights as a
father.

Even MADD's founder, Candy Lightner, has lamented that the organization
has grown neo-prohibitionist in nature.

"[MADD has] become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted
or envisioned ...," Lightner is quoted as saying in an Aug. 6 story in
the Washington Times. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I
started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving," she said.

Unfortunately, the tax-exempt organization has become so enmeshed with
government it has nearly become a formal government agency. MADD gets
millions of dollars in federal and state funding, and has a
quasi-official relationship with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. In some jurisdictions, DWI defendants are sentenced to
attend and pay for alcoholic-recovery groups sponsored by MADD. In many
cities, MADD officials are even allowed to man sobriety checkpoints
alongside police.

On the occasion of its 25th anniversary, perhaps its time Congress
revisit the spigot of federal funding flowing to MADD, and consider
revoking the organization's tax-exempt status. Clearly, MADD isn't the
same organization it was 25 years ago. It has morphed into an
anti-alcohol lobbying organization. There's nothing wrong with that -
it's certainly within MADD's and its supporters' First Amendment
rights.

But taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize them.

The problem is that even whenDUIs are caught, little is done to them.
They should lose their license forever but fat chance of that with both
a pres and vp who have DUI convictions. The criminal coddling will
continue and so will the killing and maiming of the innocent.

YourAdHere wrote:It was at about this time that MADD began to move in a
differentMADD's biggest victory on this front was a nationwide
blood-alcohol

>
>
> Indeed, many critics of the .08 policy predicted that the new law could
> make matters worse by using up scarce law enforcement resources to go
> after these new "drunk" drivers who don't pose much of a threat to
> highway safety.

You are dead WRONG! Any scientific paper I have seen so far stated: ANY
amout of alcohol extends reaction time-means makes driver dangerous to
other road users.
The problem is that "zero" tolerance would kill a lot of small towns where
the only tax paying "industry" is local watering hole.Plus it would be
impossible to prosecute and punish all the drunk behind the wheel.
People keep drinking and driving because punishment is minimal and means
nothing for lots of people. They simply consider it a "normal and
acceptable" price to pay for pleasure of drinking and driving.
If price was like it used to be in Bulgaria (if I remember right) firing
squad, than lots of drunkyards would think twice before having "only one
beer" before raming at full speed at busstop crowded with people.
I'm fully for ZERO tolerance. You have any alcohol level in your blood you
are drunk and must pay price - hopefully so high that next time you have a
drink you will wait a week before touching a steering wheel. Or like in
Finland where a ticket is a % of a of yearly income. So onedriver can pay a
few dollars for eg 10 km/miles over the speed limit and the other might pay
thousands of dollars for exactly the same. I remember one case that one of
dot com milionaires was fined something like $250 000 for speeding because
of multimilion yearly income.That hurts and makes a person think twice
before doing something stupid, even a milionaire.

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> YourAdHere wrote:It was at about this time that MADD began to move in a
> differentMADD's biggest victory on this front was a nationwide
> blood-alcohol
>
>> Indeed, many critics of the .08 policy predicted that the new law could
>> make matters worse by using up scarce law enforcement resources to go
>> after these new "drunk" drivers who don't pose much of a threat to
>> highway safety.
>
> You are dead WRONG! Any scientific paper I have seen so far stated: ANY
> amout of alcohol extends reaction time-means makes driver dangerous to
> other road users.

Perhaps, but if the statistics the Op posted are correct, those people at
the .08 level aren't showing up in the accident numbers at nearly the rate
that the people with BAC above .14 are. So why put the same level of
resource focus on the people with BAC of .08 if 90% of the problem is on the
folks driving around with BAC of .14? The result would be catching more of
the .08 people and fewer of the .14 people. Resource is finite and can only
do X-amount of enforcement work? Put that effort where it does the most
good. The point the Op made makes perfect sense. It's the 80/20 rule.
Put your resources where it achieves the greatest results (reducing
accidents). Having them go after the .08 pulls resources from going after
the .14.

> The problem is that "zero" tolerance would kill a lot of small towns where
> the only tax paying "industry" is local watering hole.

An economic reasoning isn't relivant and wouldn't have a place in a policy
discussion.

I don't have a problem with zero tolerance idea, per se. Especially since I
don't drink alcohol at all and believe it's a root cause of other social
ills that we all pay for. But, I'd rather the focus of enforcement be on
where the largest risk is, not where the lowest risk is. If a .08 is stoped
for some other reason then fine, nab them then. But don't put
special/extraordinary effort in "seeking out" someone with the BAC of .08.
I agree with the Op.

> Plus it would be impossible to prosecute and punish all the
> drunk behind the wheel.

Bingo! So, if the .08 is handled the same as the .14, guess what?

> People keep drinking and driving because punishment is minimal and means
> nothing for lots of people. They simply consider it a "normal and
> acceptable" price to pay for pleasure of drinking and driving.
> If price was like it used to be in Bulgaria (if I remember right) firing
> squad, than lots of drunkyards would think twice before having "only one
> beer" before raming at full speed at busstop crowded with people.

The ACLU may want to talk to you. ;-) A firing squad huh?

> I'm fully for ZERO tolerance. You have any alcohol level in your blood you
> are drunk and must pay price - hopefully so high that next time you have a
> drink you will wait a week before touching a steering wheel.

You just said (a couple of paragraphs back) that the system can't handle
what you just proposed. That means this is not plausable (by your own
admission). Are you're saying that you're willing to pony up more txaes to
add 80-90% more resources to handle the remaining 10-20% of the problem?
There is a point of diminishing returns that makes "zero" a place that can
never be attained.

> Or like in
> Finland where a ticket is a % of a of yearly income. So onedriver can pay
> a
> few dollars for eg 10 km/miles over the speed limit and the other might
> pay
> thousands of dollars for exactly the same.

Sounds regressive to me. Punishment for wealth, not for the crime itself.

> I remember one case that one of
> dot com milionaires was fined something like $250 000 for speeding because
> of multimilion yearly income.That hurts and makes a person think twice
> before doing something stupid, even a milionaire.

> Or like in
> Finland where a ticket is a % of a of yearly income. So onedriver can pay
> a
> few dollars for eg 10 km/miles over the speed limit and the other might
> pay
> thousands of dollars for exactly the same.

> Sounds regressive to me. Punishment for wealth, not for the crime itself. <

Actually it's the only part of his post I agree with. It's not
punishment for wealth, it's proportionality. A $500 fine means
something completely different to someone earning $100K a year versus
someone earning $20K a year. It's the same violation and the same
public risk involved but the wealthier individual is given less
incentive to alter his behavior in the future.

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 11:39:03 GMT, Rick >
wrote:

>
>
>YourAdHere wrote:It was at about this time that MADD began to move in a
>differentMADD's biggest victory on this front was a nationwide
>blood-alcohol
>
>>
>>
>> Indeed, many critics of the .08 policy predicted that the new law could
>> make matters worse by using up scarce law enforcement resources to go
>> after these new "drunk" drivers who don't pose much of a threat to
>> highway safety.
>
>You are dead WRONG! Any scientific paper I have seen so far stated: ANY
>amout of alcohol extends reaction time-means makes driver dangerous to
>other road users.

Put your emotion aside and re-read what you're responding to.

If necessary, get an adult to explain it to you.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend:


You stupid ****ing idiot!

> The problem is that even whenDUIs are caught, little is done to them.

Like your butt fat **** butt buddy kennedy.

> They should lose their license forever but fat chance of that with both
> a pres and vp who have DUI convictions.

A drunk politician - heaven forbid. They are ALL a bunch of drunken
****wits, you twit...

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:10:44 -0400, James C. Reeves >
said the following in rec.autos.driving...



> Perhaps, but if the statistics the Op posted are correct, those people at
> the .08 level aren't showing up in the accident numbers at nearly the rate
> that the people with BAC above .14 are. So why put the same level of
> resource focus on the people with BAC of .08 if 90% of the problem is on the
> folks driving around with BAC of .14? The result would be catching more of
> the .08 people and fewer of the .14 people.

And that is the goal of traffic enforcement (including DUI enforcement)
ensnare enough of the harmless people to make it appear as if you are
doing something about <sarcasm> the deadly scourge on the highways
</sarcasm> while at the same time raking in the Benjamins...

> Resource is finite and can only
> do X-amount of enforcement work? Put that effort where it does the most
> good. The point the Op made makes perfect sense. It's the 80/20 rule.
> Put your resources where it achieves the greatest results (reducing
> accidents). Having them go after the .08 pulls resources from going after
> the .14.

Yep, the cops go after the chicken hearted 0.08 guy as they know he won't
fight back in court like the 0.14 guy will. The 0.08 guy is an easy mark
and the cops know it.


--
--
Paul

"Here's a horoscope for everyone:
Aquarius: You're gonna die
Capricorn: You're gonna die
Gemini: You're gonna die TWICE
Leo: You're gonna die
Scorpio: You're gonna die ****in "
--Chris Rock

Ben wrote:

> Put your emotion aside and re-read what you're responding to.

I was not responding. I presented my opinion regarding drinking and driving.

You said " put your emotion aside"

Jump into my shoes:
A nice day. A couple of blocks from center of a large city. Not much of a
traffic. I drove speed limit. I was close to an intersection. I saw green
light. I kept driving.
All happend in a split of a second. I saw it comming. From my right. Hidden
from my viev till last moment by city bus parked right at the street corner. I
had maybe one tenth of a second to do something. I grabbed the wheel as hard
as I could and waited. Not much waiting having 1/10 of a sec but it was like
eternity. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum!!!!!
My head was hitting everything hard inside my car. Despite seat belt I was
being thrown around like a rag doll.
I was upside down and back to normal position, and again upside down, and
again down to normal, and again upside down. My fairly large and heavy Pontiac
Tempest war rolling like a ball, roof and wheels, roof and wheels and roof
again..

Another buuuuuum! Side of my car just hit lamp post and come to a rests on its
roof.
At the end a part of the car roof was touching the dash board.
The car was thrown into the air and was hitting street surface (3x) with right
side of the roof at some angle. Lucky me. Because it was hitting the surface
at angle only passenger portion of the roof collapsed.
If there was somebody beside the driver he/she would die instantly crushed to
the height (level) of dashboard and back of her/his seat. Broken glass and
parts of my car everywhere. Somebody pulled me out before leaking fuel ignited
(it did not). Ambulance, cops, hospital etc.

A few days later when I started to understand what happened I was told that my
car was hit (passenger side) by a truck at 90 degree angle. The thing that hit
me was 1 tonn welding truck (you know this kind with a steel deck and a
welding machine attached to it - very heavy unit) driven by a drunken ( but
below legal limit) farm hand that decided to have a beer after some work in
the city. His explanation? He did not see red light.

Final.
Welding truck no damage. Nothing. Later cop told me you hardly could see
scratches on its home made, heavy steel, bumper.
Farm hand got a $100 ticket for running a red light. End of story for him

My car was a write off. My earnings lost. Large portion of the small pay out
from insurance company was taken by a lawyer.
Next 3 months continuos pain and suffering because of injured spine and torn
or stretched beyond limits of natural flexibility neck and other muscles. I
could not work. I could not walk. I could not seat. I could not sleep. Slowly,
slowly I got better.
I still have once per a while spine problem since.
X-ray does not show anything so for doctors I'm 100% healthy.
And you say I'm emotional?

A cop said I must be very very lucky. In his 15 years as a traffic cop he
never saw anybody getting alive from crash like mine.

How about you?
Let say drunk (but below limit) makes you quadriplegic for rest of your life.
Are you still going to support drunk driving from your wheelchair?


> If necessary, get an adult to explain it to you.

Not me, you need to mature and activate your brains once per a while.

For your own good try to remember: Drinking and Driving DO NOT MIX!

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 21:55:50 -0400, The Laura Bush Murdered Her
Boyfriend Blade
<the_blade@the_mouth_of_Laura_Bush_Murdered_Her_Bo yfriend.cum> wrote:

>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend:
>
>
>You stupid ****ing idiot!
>
>> The problem is that even whenDUIs are caught, little is done to them.
>
>Like your butt fat **** butt buddy kennedy.
>
>> They should lose their license forever but fat chance of that with both
>> a pres and vp who have DUI convictions.
>
>A drunk politician - heaven forbid. They are ALL a bunch of drunken
>****wits, you twit...

Name one other president who had a dui conviction.