Well worded.
If I operated a private tollway, I would have no problem restricting use to only those not drug
(or otherwise) impaired. Exactly how that
would be done, and the definition/measurement of impairment would be the challenge.
Perhaps an entrance exam (obstacle/driving course)...
This would give the rest of my customers some assurance of safer travel (vs. their other
recourse of unrelenting lawsuits).

Complete nonsense designed to destroy our freedoms and enrich the police.

Outside of your own personal domain- anything executed while inebriated that endangers others should have legal consequences.

A pilot that takes command of a plane while intoxicated, a bus driver, a train conductor, etcetera, if intoxicated, are all guilty of endangering the lives of innocent people.

However, a glass of wine/ beer, even two, if imbibed while eating a two hour dinner will not cause intoxication (this discussion is not about exceptions, i.e. Individuals with extremely low alcohol tolerance, etc.)
Responsibility requires that you recognize your limits and if you go past them get someone to drive you home, friend or taxi!

No- I do not agree with the extremes of MADD. I do not agree that they should FORCE a person to undergo a blood draw. The law to check for impairment by intoxication, should only be applied where there has been an accident and suspected or evident that the driver is impaired by alcohol. This might be impairment by drugs, legal or not, but any form of operating a machine, that endangers others, while under the influence of mind altering substances should have legal consequences.

In conclusion, anyone repeating this offense after having hurt or killed someone should be severally dealt with... like never being allowed behind any wheel again.

They're pushing now for .05. Their alcohol involved accidents include pedestrian bystanders that smell of alcohol. The lies just build and build.

If it's his property, yes he has the right to a shooting range. If he does't build it right and harms someone else, then he faces a jury.

ummm, I support the sheriff instead of madd. the
sheriff stops drunk drivers. not enough, but some.

fer-sher, we need to add madd to the extinct list;;;
I agree!!! -- j

How true. And as important, the mentality that believes in that type of control of others certainly didn't go away. It grew.

If we were really against drunk driving we would get rid of the taxi monopolies, but we don't, which shows this is not about saving lives but collecting revenue and turning people into criminals.

Actually, I think just a small push in research and we could have cars drive themselves. If we were really against drunk driving we would get rid of the taxi monopolies, but we don't, which shows this is not about saving lives but collecting revenue and turning people into criminals.

The .08 alcohol limit has no rational basis. MADD are a bunch of lairs and it is time to stop this assault on innocent people.

Perhaps, but MADD is based on lies and it is hurting thousands of innocent people and undermining our freedoms. It is time for MADD to be exposed and go extinct.

Perhaps, but MADD is based on lies and it is hurting thousands of innocent people and undermining our freedoms. It is time for MADD to be exposed and go extinct.

I am completely against the random searches. It's unfortunate, though, that long jail sentences are less of a deterrent than a high probability of getting caught. Because of this, invasive searches probably are a "better" use of money. Increasing jail sentences tenfold costs ten times more and doesn't make criminals stop. So I'm saying turning the world into a jail "works" best at stopping crime and is still wrong.

Regardless of all this, there's simply no excuse for people not being free from unreasonable searches.

this post is about MADD in specific.and their methods. Driving while intoxicated should not be a crime. Have you ever shared a bottle of wine at a restaurant and then driven home? If stopped for any reason and you refuse to submit to a blood draw, you will be forcibly given one with the court's immediate warrant sanction. The efforts of MADD have helped this totalitarian objective. THAT is the problem I am addressing and the discrediting of an organization gone wild.

I think Robbie's arguments make perfect sense.

Drunk driving laws shift the blame to the substance instead of the person. If I drive 90 miles and hour in a school zone and kill a child, the question is whether I was driving recklessly. If I was drinking that is at best a secondary issue.

Driving tired kills causes more crashes than driving impaired and they tried to come up with a way to enforce ( fine you ) that, but never could figure out a way. Just puts things in a different light. Almost everyone drives tired and if they kill someone, most likely, they will not be charged.

To me the answer is patently obvious.
You stop an offender based on behavior and then you subject them to draconian punishment.

This is a serious crime. It merits serious consequences.

The time you serve should be based on you degree of impairment.
If you're drunk enough to fail the field sobriety test - six months upon conviction.

If you're hammered - 5 years.
2nd time - 10.

It's called "depraved indifference" and in any other context it's a serious crime.

And no, the prisons would not fill up with drunks. And yes, the incidence of drunk driving would plummet.

And no, we would no longer have to subject the law abiding to blatantly unconstitutional random searches.

As to what to say to the MADD folks - suggest what I've just said.

PUNISH the guilty!

(Of course, I'm talking REAL years here - not "jail time" years (usually 1/3 to 1/2 of real years.)

Obviously Prohibition was never really repealed. We had local laws against the sale of alcohol at the state and local law and our drug laws are prohibition.

There may be those among the people who are so filled with forgiveness that any tragedy is an excuse to show their holiness by forgiving the perpetrator. I am not one of those. When the horrible tragedy struck someone very dear to me, all I felt was anger. Not only that, I wanted to vent the anger, not only on the perpetrator, but on anyone and everyone of his ilk. If you can understand that, you can understand why I once wanted everyone restricted, Constitution be damned. It took me years to return to rationality, some people never do. In those who have never had discipline enough to use their brains over their emotions, engaging them at all, would be a mistake and a waste of time. Had you expected a rational response from me during those years, all you would have gotten would be arguments and resentment. I would have irrationally wanted you to feel as I did.
I hope this has given you some insight, Remember that most of MADD is mad.

The drunk driving campaign is based on lies. Did you read the article. MADD has consistently lied as has the NHTSA. Fewer people die from drunk driving than from drowning.

But random stops?
Surely you're not advocating that, Mike.

Sorry, k, your arguments do not speak to the problem. Do you know NEOTECH? They are culturally an offshoot of Objectivism. But to criticize Neotech is not to address us here. On another note, consider the internal politics of the ARI. I can recommend a website called ARIwatch which while largely not that insightful does have some interesting facts to present, though not about this website and us. So, too, with MADD. You might have a valid point about the organization. The problem of people who drive while intoxicated is a different challenge entirely.

Robbie, your arguments are only rhetorical rants. You do not address the fundamental problems. It may be that some other solution exists, but you seem far from finding it.

Do you have the right to your own shooting range in your backyard on the theory that you are a responsible gun owner? (I don't mean out in the Back Forty of your farm. I mean in the city or the suburbs, of course.) You have no right to endanger other people and we have a century of experience with alcohol and automobiles. I fail to see the basis for debate.

I do not know where you live, but basically boating while intoxicated is also a crime for the same reasons as DWI. You just need to find an interested law enforcement agency to clear the lake.

I grew up in Cleveland and the Coast Guard could not be aggressive enough on Lake Erie. Rather than your "white trash" we had the discretely uncharming bourgeoisie of the EYC and CYC who thought that they were above the law. Well, the laws of nature are unforgiving. So, when a storm came up, the skippers would panic, race for the yacht clubs and run up on the breakwalls because they were too drunk to steer. It was amusing in a sad sort of way. The same sadness as when someone went overboard, could not swim, and no one on board was fit to do much except yell. At least there was some record of that. The other thing we get on the Great Lakes is the "missing fisherman" (or plural). They go out in a small boat for an afternoon of fishing and drinking and are never heard from again unless they wash up somewhere. (I know: you think that you should be so lucky...)

The thing with cars is that the drivers do not just kill themselves and their passengers. So DWI enforcement must be more strict than BWI.