When they called me (I'm no longer on their call list) I would tell them that MADD is part of the problem...not part of the solution.

Drunk driving isn't criminal behavior. Hurting people is criminal behavior.

I also suggested that they try to.lobby congress for the death penalty for any drunk driver who kills by intoxicated use of a vehicle...but that probably would give them more ideas.

wikipedia is not a reliable source

Alcohol is the cause of much misery against its consumers and others.
But laws against drink driving can backfire. Meticulous research has shown how accident risk increases with blood alcohol level - but there is always a blip at low levels - the cause is the law - spouse A drinks a glass and hands over driving to spouse B, but spouse B is a worse driver at zero than spouse A is at 5%. Result, more crashes.

Can not resist giving this link.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/...
Much bad behavior, safe to say that alcohol played no part.

Good point, DB. The REAL good news is we'll only be worried about this for a short time longer.

Cadillac says they'll have hands-free driving in the fast lane in two or three years!

Google will have curb to curb in 10 to 15 years.
30 years and most every car drive itself.

Seems like a long time - but not really.

Of course jail time of the length I describe is a deterrence.
Most drunk driver are normal folk - not criminals by nature.

Not people for whom loss of job, home and freedom mean nothing.

If it were known - as sure as the stove is hot - that driving when you can't walk will land you five years in prison you WOULD see far fewer DWI's.

The average man is not stupid.

It's not NAZI to punish the guilty And someone driving sh!t-faced is not committing a victimless crime.

If it only endangered themselves I'd be just as OK with it as Heroin. A real bad idea but your choice.

But it's not just them - is it?
And they really do kill people, don't they?
And they didn't give it a moments thought, did they?

That will change when the stakes are high enough.

The crime is based on impairment - not blood alcohol level.

I recall an educational video where they gave alcohol to a half-dozen motorcyclists whose riding experience ranged from newly licensed to pro BMX.

Of course each person's reaction time got worse with each drink, but the thing I noticed,
(Only I! How come nobody else ever notices!),
was that only on the last drink - well past the blood alcohol legal limit - did the BMX Pro score as badly as the newbee's first ride.

If the beginner was legal at the start the pro should have been legal at LEAST up until the last drink.

If you can't walk a straight line you can't drive.

If you're a little buzzed - but CAN walk a straight line, CAN touch your nose with your eyes closed, CAN say your ABC's backward starting at "M" - well then you probably CAN drive just fine.

Don't base it on blood. Base it on impairment.

Alcohol related accidents include those where the drivers were sober, but a pedestrian bystander smelled of alcoholic beverage (alcohol has no odor).
The reductions of automobile accident deaths probably have as much, or more, to do with improved auto design, seat belts, air bags, and improved highway design than the nonsensical 'war' on DWI's. Laws to prevent crime only serve to criminalize the innocent, not prevent anything.

If people are hell bent on killing someone it does not matter what weapon they use. Look what happened with hatchet man in NYC.

oh my goodness, your point of view lacks reason. where is any of your empirical evidence for your point of view? there is no evidence that drunk driving laws have stopped a single accident. that anyone is impaired at .08 , you are suggesting an interference of peoples' freedom and without any empirical evidence the burden of proof is on you. This stand you have is statist-not Objectivist.

17k alcohol-related deaths. If alcohol disappeared from the earth, are you saying those 17k would have lived? I suspect not, but even if the answer were yes, it wouldn't be cause to relinquish our freedoms.

khalling asked rhetorically: " Have you ever shared a bottle of wine at a restaurant and then driven home? " No, I never have. I am not a social drinker. You want to the right to get drunk with friends, get in your car and drive home.

You will then claim since you did not harm anyone, that it was not dangerous. And when you do harm someone, how does putting you in prison or taking away your license or just shaming you in court actually undo the harm you caused?

db, in order to determine who is lying, first we must determine the truth. Deaths from drowning, about 3500. Deaths from alcohol-related accidents 17,000. Now, you can claim that the numbers you do not like are not real, but you are going to have to present some facts. Not only did I find that article from http://Drunkard.com, I actually dug deeper.

Drowning: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSa...
Drunk Driving here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_drivi...

Moreover - lies being excluded truths - the evil "Norma Phillips" of MADD (Norma Phillips Thorworth) died in 2001, a fact conveniently left out by the drunkards. Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_Phill...

This research is childishly easy for me. I am stunned that you and the others did not care to do it.

Ayn Rand asserted that you have no right to endanger another person. You are free to disagree with her, of course.

Imagine that. Use reason & facts. You sound like a gulcher. :)

Vote for Democrats - higher taxes, less freedom.

Nazi "criminal justice system" in USSA, they also lock people up for not paying alimony, for possessing drugs. 3 million in prison, in USSA, more than China and Russia combined.

That is a tough one Winter. I would probably say that they were probably too emotionally driven to make good decisions. I would explain that I find I make better decisions if I can use reason and solid facts to make up my mind. It's hard to do that if you have suffered a loss like they have. Good luck WW.

I thought it was mothers against dyslexia.

You probably think I'm making the slippery slope fallacy, but you should make your own arguments.

What I said is true. If their only goal is to reduce crimes, it's better that we give up our rights. Freedom isn't free. If decreasing crime is their main goal, liberty may not be the way to go.

Thank you.
The irony is noted.
Drawing a line is never simple.

Exactly. Thanks for expressing it so well.

Indeed!!

Hi, MM,
I think that you need to accept the fundamental truth that living is dangerous, by definition.
The continuous search for absolute safety is gradually inhibiting freedom, as I think most people see by now. The distorted reasoning of finding excuses and describing criminal acts as "mistakes" that are fault of the "society" just ads, it seems to me, more poison to the brew. Don't you see all around instances of people equating "freedom" with irresponsibility. Truly reasonable animals crave freedom of thought, freedom of expressing their thought and freedom of action based on their thought. There is balance between risk and safety, which all of us have to search. Have you ever thought about how many different kinds of police we have? Don't you find it depressing to see our governments becoming more and more oppressive? Just some food for thought.