Time to Disenfranchise Mothers? (MADD rant)

[madmusic]

Posted by Sean Lynch @ 5:00 am in

Or maybe all parents. First they pass Prop 83 and now MADD is pushing .05, at least in Canada. It seems like parents are willing to spend billions of other people’s money and ruin harmless people’s lives for a 0.001% reduction in their children’s risk of death. It’s like when you accidentally get between a cow and a calf. And unfortunately life consists of a path with cows on one side and calves on the other.

So here’s my proposal: from the time of first pregnancy until all one’s children turn 18, no voting for either parent. Or at least let’s ban laws named after children. This has gone far enough. I really don’t want to have to start shooting parents in self defense.

more: http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/11/10/time-to-disenfranchise-mothers/

[Coventina]

1. Flame war in 3.....2......1........

:popcorn:

[madmusic]

3. You think so?

Could be, but not intended. A lot of people, maybe most, are ready to stop and think.

[Jed Dilligan]

7. They assume that we are drunk drivers,

Just as the anti-smoking people assume that all the ones who are sane on that issue are smokers. Or that sole DUer who thinks marijuana should remain illegal--she thinks we're all stoned.

Taking social problems personally is a right-wing trait. People who think the law should reflect what "we" approve of or disapprove of don't belong in a party that's called Democratic.

[madmusic]

18. Constitutional Amendment: The Right to Drive Drunk

(AP) Drunk drivers across the country are calling for voters to approve an amendment permitting drunk drivers. "Drunk driving is an American tradition dating back to our Founders," said Wino, the group's spokesman. "No one called a cab. The got on their horses and drove."

When asked about the danger to the public, Wino said, "The wording is carefully crafted by Bar Stool, who used to be a lawyer before he was barred. No where, I repeat, no one does the amendment call for legalizing hurting anyone."

Critics claim the wording is ambiguous and point to Clause II, which states, "A dinner and drinks is part and parcel to winning and dinning. It is inerrant in the dating ritual and has a long tradition."

While some feminists agreed, others want revisions. "The winning and dining clause may be historically accurate, but we want the word 'ritual' removed. It is a patriarchal ritual."

Not so, said Jane. "I'm a staunch feminist, and if I want to seduce a man or a woman with dinner and drinks, I don't want some burly cop fucking it up by impounding my car and taking me to jail. That's like a romantic candle lighting the house on fire. Ruins the moment."

Gays and lesbians had a different issue. They want a change in Clause III. "Clause III insinuates that alcohol is Traditional Family Values because so many go out for a movie and drinks and make babies when they go home. That's all well and good, and we don't begrudge them that. But our romance is equally romantic."

President Bush laughed when told about the proposed amendment. "I wish they had then when I was drinking," he said.

[Coventina]

8. Well, I have to say I'm surprised by the responses so far

Every time I've suggested that the "anti-drunk driving craze" has been carried too far I've been jumped on like a trampoline on gym day.

:shrug:

[madmusic]

11. Maybe it depends on the day of the week...

Today is Saturday. Take note. :)

And another note:

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.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5116

[Jed Dilligan]

15. Forcing convicts into 12 step

Clear violation of separation of church and state, and anyone serious about recovery will tell you it's a horribly shitty idea as well.

[William Bloode]

28. The 12 steps are not religion.

The statement of except a higher power, does not mean god. Your higher power can be anyone or anything. It's just recognizing you are powerless against your addiction, and need to look to a higher power, which i said can be a person, deity, or inanimate object.

[Jed Dilligan]

36. As far as I'm concerned, it is,

and no court of law should require anyone to participate.

Simply the term "higher" eliminates certain faiths. What if I worship a lower power, or think there are 11 steps? If not religion, it's quasi-religious and has no place in government.

[William Bloode]

39. If yer a junkie, theres a lot of things higher than you.

You need to have faith that something is stronger than you, because a a junkie you have to admit you are weak. At least as far a drugs are concerned, Addicts have to have faith in something. I might accept quasi religious, but that kinda needed. Thats due to the fact you need strict structure, and brotherhood/sisterhood of the group to help you. Any religion is welcome, any person is welcome to start a group. The "lower" power statement is irrelevant, as i said you can choose anything to be your higher power, even a chair, satan is it serves your purpose. 12 step programs don't give a shit about any religious aspect, all they care about is staying clean, and helping others do the same. Also guess what? They offer it for free everywhere else, and it has by far a higher success rate than anything else as far as addiction is concerned.

[Jed Dilligan]

41. Any numbers on the success rate?

I'm interested for other reasons. I've heard 2-3% but it might depend on the criterion. (ie that might be no relapses)

Whether or not recovery works has very little to do with the issue, though. Knowing as much as you do about it, you must understand that involuntary "recovery" is a farce.

I'm not a junkie, but I don't want my government forcing anyone into a "strict structure" involving a "brotherhood/sisterhood." This is not to say it's a bad thing, but I am absolutely against the government involving it.

[William Bloode]

44. The success rate is low.

Always will be. Addiction is very powerful. often times people make 10-20 attempts before they become successful. I agree that involuntary recovery is no good, but it does put a bee in their bonnet, and gets you to thinking. It also lets you know you have support whenever you need it.

As far as forcing anything on you. You can go to meetings and not participate. You can sit there and be quiet as a stone. No one forces you to participate.

Having someone attend AA, or NA is far better and , far more humane than forcing them into jail. Think about that.

[Jed Dilligan]

45. I imagine that court-ordered meetings are a little more

intrusive than that. There are also "classes" which are not really the program but draw heavily on it.

Once again, nothing against recovery--I just don't believe in the government forcing beliefs on people.

[William Bloode]

48. More intrusive than jail?

I reckon you never had some twisted fuck staring at you asshole for extended period of time because it was in his power. Thats the type of thing that happens in jail. Never had that kind of thing imposed on me in a 12 step program. There also is no force to it. I stated you do not have to participate in any meetings. You can just sit there and listen, or hell bring a radio and tune them out, bring a book and read, whatever. They only ask you to try things their way if you CHOOSE to participate.

[Jed Dilligan]

50. I meant more intrusive than the meetings

where no one is forced to participate.

[William Bloode]

52. Gotcha.

nt/

[madmusic]

38. But the Supreme Court I think ruled it cannot be required.

It can be optional if a secular option is available, if memory serves, which it might not.

Where's my beer.

Just kidding.

[William Bloode]

40. It is secular.

As stated your higher power can be anything. Example, you admit "i am powerless, i have no power no will of my own" My dog is stronger than me, so i will use my dog as my higher power. Or same statement about being powerless followed by "my sponsor has been clean x amount of years, he's stronger so i will use him as my higher power. This also does not mean you have to worship your higher power, just that you are powerless, and other things and people are stronger.

[Jed Dilligan]

42. Once again,

what you write IS a belief.

Not a bad one, but still a belief. The US Constitution is clear on no one being forced by the government to have a belief.

[madmusic]

43. Some courts don't agree.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28019.html">Drunk with Power: The case against court-imposed 12-step treatments

That was 2001, since then I think the SCOTUS decided against the requirements without an option.

[William Bloode]

51. Interesting link.

I'd have to agree three years is a bit much Lil! Here they have you go to like 5-20 max. Also in the meetings you don't have to participate. You can sit there and read if you choose, or bring some music, whatever.

In my opinion 5-20 meetings beats the 15-30 days jail time you might get for not being willing to give it a go. Also i would rather be asked to attend 12 step meetings than have to pay out of pocket for many of the state sponsored programs. The state sponsored non 12 step ones i have been to are far worse than any 12 step i have been to. The brow beating is/was relentless, and way out of line. Not to mention the cost.

[conscious evolution]

59. Absolutely right

I am in aa and I tell people that are having problems with the god thing that they dont have to believe in the Judeo/Christian?Islamiic god thing.Just realize that you are unable to get sober without help.
As for MADD?FUck em.Because of them aa is overrun with people who are only there because some judge sent them as part of a DUI sentence.99% of them are not alkies but instead are only guilty of really bad judgement.
AA is for people who WANT to get sober.Not people who have been sentenced to sobriety.

[Jed Dilligan]

61. To me, it's the belief aspect that's problematic

God or no God, you are asked to "admit you are powerless." What if that isn't what someone believes? If the government sends him to a place where he is supposed to say this, it's no different from the Church making Galileo recant before executing him. It's establishment of belief by the state and has no place in this country.

Thanks for pointing out another reason not to support this policy--that it's ruining AA for the people who want and need it.

[canetoad]

16. Hehe I know where you're coming from

but hope you have asbestos knickers on!

The most puzzling question in the universe is why the fuck do people hang those stupid baby on board signs in car windows? Does it mean 'please crash into the next car, but not mine' or 'give me extra courtesy on the roads'? Always wondered about the point of it is. Could be just to prove they are fertile?

[Jack Rabbit]

46. That kind of nonsense isn't worth the fire

Opening ceremony, 1992 Olympic Games, Barcelona,
from Olympic Museum

[zanne]

2. Sometimes I feel that way, too.

When I was growing up, there was a kid's world and an adult world. Now it's all a kid's world.

[Jed Dilligan]

4. Do they still show up at arraignments to berate people?

I'm not a fan of parenting-based politics. What mom lets her children out on the roads in the middle of the night when most drunk driving occurs, anyway?

[gollygee]

9. Drunk driving occurs all the time, I'm afraid to say

including the middle of the day. I know people who have been in drunk driving accidents and one of the accidents was in the middle of the day, and the other was at like 8 or 9 pm, and the kids weren't walking in the street, they were in another car driven by a parent.

But in both cases the drunk drivers were well and truly drunk.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. I'm sure it does, since there are 24X7 drunks

However, since the argument for continually reducing the tolerable BAC is statistical, I would counter statistically--at one AM, almost everyone on the road is either drunk or half-asleep. Stay inside during those hours. You will reduce your chances of being hit by a drunk much more than any new law.

[gollygee]

14. I agree with that

And driving while desperately needing sleep is as dangerous as driving while drunk.

[gollygee]

5. As a mom, I think MADD would be better off

focusing their attention on catching people who are actually drunk and driving, rather than continually changing the definition of "drunk".

[AspenRose]

13. Agreed

eom

[seabeyond]

6. i am a parent and i am in your camp n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

12. .05 is too low. Like all good social movements, MADD has come to its limits

There has to be a point where an adult can have a glass of wine with dinner and not be paranoid about driving home.

If the "legally drunk" limit goes too low--to a point where most people are not drunk or even impaired-- it will simply create contempt for the law itself. I myself never drink if I am going to drive because alcohol makes me tired, even in small amounts, and I don't want to take the risk of tiredness interfering with my driving. But for most people, the impairment of a drink or two at dinner is fairly minimal. There is far more impairment of driving from the use of cell phones, still legal in California while driving.

[earth mom]

17. Those who've had a family member killed by a drunk driver feel much differently.

My mom was killed by a drunk driver and so I don't think people should have even one drink and be allowed to drive. Not only that but people who use cell phones should be banned from using them while driving. Anything that is a distraction from the purpose of full concentration while driving should be banned. Don't even get me started on those teevees I see on front dashboards of big ole SUVs either! Driving a car is serious business! :grr:

[Jed Dilligan]

19. What do you propose replacing tax revenue with

when, due to the new law you advocate, every bar and restaurant in the country goes out of business?

[earth mom]

21. Interesting how money is more important than a human life to you.

BTW-Ever heard of designated drivers? Or Taxi Cabs? Buses? Or calling a friend?

p.s. I sincerely hope you never lose a loved one this way, it is shocking and agonizing beyond measure.

[Jed Dilligan]

23. In any case,

It is crap logic to blame your mothers' death on people who have one or two drinks out and drive home.

No, I've never heard of buses that operate at 2 AM, not where I've lived. Taxis are expensive. Calling a friend? What a great way to end a date.

If you want to honor your mother's memory, you should push for more public transportation, not more punitive legislation.

What is less important to me than revenue is your feelings, or anyone's for that matter. I wish all legislation based on how people feel would stop immediately.

[earth mom]

29. How much are drinks with a tip these days?

$5 bucks, $10 bucks? How much x 2, $10 or $20 bucks? If you can afford to go out and pay those kind of prices to drink, you CAN afford a cab.

p.s. My feelings are irrelevant because it's all about YOU isn't it? :eyes:

[Jed Dilligan]

32. Where I used to live,

anyplace I would go would be a 50-100 dollar cab ride from my place. (I hate suburbia.) Now I live in a small town and don't drive at all. Your ideas of what things cost and the availability of transit suggests you've only lived in large cities.

It doesn't matter what choices I would make, because even if I decided to be unusually responsible, most people wouldn't. Even if one drink was the limit and the penalty was being shot on sight, people would still drive drunk.

Why do you imagine such a law would have had any chance of saving your mother? Especially since the revenue from all the nightspots helps pay for the cops who would enforce it.

[gollygee]

37. It would be much more expensive for me to get a cab ride than that

though I don't drink anyway because alcohol gives me migraine headaches. But those numbers sound like numbers from a city with a lot of taxicabs.

[gollygee]

20. I don't get this

First of all, I truly am sorry for your loss. I know how hard it is to lose a loved one, but I don't know how hard it is to lose a loved one due to a crime. :(

But I don't understand how keeping people from driving after just one drink will help anyone. Very few people are even slightly impaired after one drink. No lives will be saved by that.

I'd like to things handled different in regard to people who are truly drunk and who drive. It's a crime with a huge number of repeat offenders. I don't know what the solution would be, but it seems to me that finding a solution to the problem of repeat offenders, or at least making an improvement in that area, would really save lives.

[Jed Dilligan]

24. Where are the cops

when I see some ass weaving all over the road?

I think they'd rather bust a borderline case than someone who will probably puke on them or in their car. Or might be so irrationally drunk as to pull a gun...

[earth mom]

The problem with drinking is that people don't realize how impaired the are.

I think Oprah or somebody did a show where people started drinking, got past the legal limit and said they felt fine and could easily drive home! Once people start drinking the last thing they want to do is stop and quit having fun. There are no Breathalyzers in bars or clubs either to keep people from going overboard and so to me it's a can of worms trying to figure out how much is too much. It can't be controlled really so the best thing to do is just not allow it. That doesn't mean for people to stop drinking or going to bars and clubs. But it means that people need to drink responsibly and know what the score is. What's wrong with taking a cab home? It's not more expensive in most cases than one or two drinks.

p.s. Thanks for your kind words. :hi:

[gollygee]

33. My husband has told me that

in Australia, where he's from, there actually are breathalyzers in bars, and the bouncers strongly encourage people to use them, so people can see what their blood alcohol limit is and make other arrangements if they were unaware they were so affected. Maybe that would be something that would make a big difference?

I just don't think not allowing people to even have one drink is reasonable. But I see your point about people not realizing how affected they are.

Also, I wasn't thinking about when people go to the bar because people do tend to drink way too much at bars. I was more thinking of when people go out to eat and have a beer or a glass of wine with dinner.

[lildreamer316]

53. Bar owners will never go for it here-

They feel that if that is there, and enforced, that customers will not want to return, because they get pissed off about it.
Of course that shouldn't be the case-one would think an intelligent customer would be appreciative that the bar wanted to watch out for them and others, but that's not how people think. Owners are just so greedy they don't want to risk hurting their bottom line.
I do believe if it was mandated (I hate making a law for everyfrigginthing, but in this case it would help people understand it's not that big an inconvenience); it would eventually be not a big deal, but that's a whole other can of worms.

At several of the Myrtle Beach clubs I danced at, they had a breathalyser in the dressing room. I had to sit and wait for a ride one night after work because I was blowing way over the limit. That was fine with me, but I felt it was a bit hypocritical.

[Jed Dilligan]

35. No

It's very rare actually for Americans to live within a ten dollar cab ride of restaurants and bars.

[madmusic]

30. I'm sorry to hear that. Really, very sorry.

As tragic as that must have been and maybe still is for you, it is most likely that the driver who was responsible was arrested and convicted, and it is probable that he/she had more than a drink or two. There are millions of people who have a drink after work or with dinner and they are not a danger. Nor are they responsible for your mom.

Is it really fair to punish everyone for what that driver did? Isn't it prejudice and discrimination to equate everyone with the worst?

MADD did some good, but it is possible the "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" campaign did as much or more good. Who hasn't heard of that?

There has to be a point where ever harsher laws violate the cost/benefit analysis rule. MADD is at the point where they are starting to sound like the BushCo "We have to destroy our freedoms to protect them" argument.

[earth mom]

49. Thank you for your kind words.

My mom was killed over 20 years ago and the woman who killed her did not do jail time but rather got 2 years probation and a $1000 fine. Small price to pay for a life wouldn't you say? A lot has changed since then and I'm happy to see the stricter laws and punishments that have no doubt saved lives. Part of me even feels sorry for the woman that killed my mom because she has to live with that on her conscience for the rest of her life.

However, just because I believe in banning drinking and driving does not mean I agree with anything that *Co has been dishing out. Oh HELL NO!

So how is it prejudicial or a form of discrimination to say that people who are drinking have no idea how impaired they are and they shouldn't be a danger to others? Just because you want to drink a bit & drive and then demand that I be okay with it means that you are violating my right to say HELL NO to that and be able to be on the streets safely!

BTW-Isn't that more like what * has done in office? Say screw you to everyone-I'm gonna do what I WANT and I don't care who I mow down or who I hurt?!

Exactly how are you hurt by not drinking & driving anyway?

[madmusic]

55. The question is when is a driver "imparied."

Is a 0.05 level impaired? Maybe having someone else in the car and talking to them is enough to be equally impaired. Eating, talking on cell phones, smoking, a whole host of things can impair our driving. Some of these could be more dangerous than a drink with dinner. The point, I think, is that the streets will never be 100% safe, because some drivers are impaired by their stupidity. Can't really outlaw that.

By prejdudical and discriminatory I mean the equation of crimes using worst case scenarios. Yes, as we know, there is real potential for major injury or death from drunk driving. However, there is a clear distinction between someone who has a drink with dinner and someone who drank all night in a bar then crashed. MADD is trying to equate them through prejudice and discrimination. It is rather like the liquids scare at airports. Some liquids can be bombs, so ban them all! BushCo eventually gave up that scare tactic. So there comes a point where it is possible to outlaw the act of being alive. None of us will ever be perfectly safe and the laws could become so restrictive that we would prefer a little danger just to get out from under them. Many wars and revolutions start that way. That is a natural reaction to repression. So the cost/benefit could backfire. That is why the balance between liberty and safety is so important.

I'm not suggesting there will be a nationwide revolution against the drunk driving laws, but am saying that there is a cost/benefit line between liberty and safety.

[mongo]

57. Better ban talking to passengers, eating, and listening to the radio too

because they are all as distracting as talking on a cell phone.

[RC]

22. Probation has been tried already

It didn't work then and there is no indication it will work now. If the drunk driver is causing a problem, go after them.
Going after everyone & their kid brother will only push the problem underground.

[Jed Dilligan]

25. Don't you mean "prohibition"?

[RC]

58. Yeah, that too.

:blush:

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Being 19, I'm inherently no fan of MADD

However I recognize that moreso than MADD, it's my own age group's fault that the drinking age is 21. Decisions are made by those who show up. MADD shows up to vote. 18-20 year olds don't.

[Mountainman]

27. be one of those old farts that yellat kids for being kids.

[4theheart]

31. Are you Madd about it?

-nt

[kiahzero]

34. I don't drink at all, and I think MADD is going too far.

MADD uses ad hominem arguments to claim that anyone against their programs is just a drunk driver that doesn't want to get caught, rather than rationally argue for them. Their push to continue to lower the acceptable BAC is indicative that their goal has shifted from stopping drunk driving (a laudable purpose) to effectively prohibiting alcohol consumption (significantly less so, in my estimation).

[Clark2008]

47. I don't take exception to author's belief that there's too much bullying

(I think that is also the case of smokers)...

BUT...

I do have a problem with telling folks they can't vote if they have children.

I'm still rational - despite having a 7-year-old and one on the way.

[SmokingJacket]

54. It's just one whackball's dumb idea.

Obviously no one's going to "go after" parents and voting.

He could have made a similar point more intelligently. At what point does scientific evidence indicate that alcohol has a measurable effect on behavior? I'd like to know that myself -- and a more nuanced point: how do we calculate the cost/risk in terms of alcohol? Is it too dangerous to let a person who's had even a single drink drive? Or is the impact on driving at very low levels even distinguishable from say, the distraction caused by the radio playing?

[madmusic]

56. Satire, I think, like A Modest Proposal.

Good question about the radio. I've had at least one close call while trying to find the right station.

[Rockstone]

60. They are cloaked prohibitionists

They have criminalized life. I don't have a problem with how much money they spend. I have a problem with them harassing and punishing people who are not a threat.

I personally refuse to have a single drink when I am out because I will not allow myself to become one of their victims. And as a result, I also seldom, if ever, go out.