www2.potsdam.edu — MADD is using bogus statistics to push its agenda of prohibition. It first tried to make people register beer kegs like guns. Now it wants all first-time DUI offenders to be required to have ignition interlock devices.
Mar 11, 2007 View in Crawl 4
ajajadudeMar 11, 2007
You've just reminded me of that old cliche: two wrongs don't make a right.
Closed AccountMar 12, 2007Submitter
[the story itself *looks as if* it wants to claim that MADD is this terrible organization]This article says NOTHING like that. MADD does ALOT more good than harm and I in no way being an advocate of drunk drivers. I am just merely pointing out that MADD needs to remember why they started and what they are trying to do instead of trying to run the country. If we are legally allowed to go to a restaurant or a bar and purchase and consume these drinks without having to "prove" you are not driving then if we, as a responsible adult, feel we are not "drunk" we should be allowed to get into our car [without having to blow thru a tube] and drink home like a normal person. How embarrassing to be on a date or something with someone and then you go to walk them to their car for a kiss goodbye but you have to wait because they need to blow their car going first!
Closed AccountMar 12, 2007
My god...a bitchfest by some college kids mad that they can't drive drunk now not only makes hte front page, but gets on the top Dugg list?
darel99Mar 12, 2007
...People.... Wake up! It's yet another example of controlling our population. It really doesn't matter who is seeking to limit freedoms at the end of the day it's still the same issue. CONTROL. However, I deplore those who drink and drive. If you read the State proposed Law from Cal and also a recent proposal for VA they suggest any driver and I repeat any driver. Should in fact have to submit to a breath test located in the car. Now lets back up a moment. Our states legislatures want you and I to have a breath test before our cars or operable. Now I don't know about you but I seldom drink and I have never drank and drove my car anywhere. So for those who have never had an issue all of a sudden two states have had bills proposed to test EVERYONE not just those convicted. Both bills have been killed but they were proposed. Just do your home work. Va wanted the action taken by 2015, If I ran for office here in VA I would propose a law which suggests.... Any first time offender of being legally drunk would be subject to a month of weekend jail sentences. They would start Friday after work then end early Monday morning. However if it jeopardizes a single parent family then some latitude must be given. The person would serve this term for one month every weekend. This way it would not (hopefully) not interfere with jobs, family issues. If they were convicted a second time they would have an automatic law after due process of law for 30 days in jail. If they had a third offense 120 days in jail and all driver privileges revoked for one year. If they are caught in an accident and regardless of number of offenses the he person would have to serve 120 days in jail. If harm to another person resulted then the death penalty should be a reasonable conclusion. MADD's suggestion is simply not an option. It will cause similar harm as our so called US Patrioat act has caused and we all know our freedoms have been limited with that obsure bill presented by Bush. (I'm a Paleo Conservative) who did vote for bush so note to those who would dig me down thinking I', a clinton loving voter. We must oppose any action which limits our freedoms. ....
formerlypatrickMar 12, 2007
MADD is a joke, they offer no other solution other than enforcement. I'm from Portland, you'll never guess what time the train closes (12am). Is MADD petitioning the train station to stay open until 3am so people have an alternate way home, no. There only statement is "drink less or don't drink at all". This organization is a farce.
formerlypatrickMar 12, 2007
lets take the rapists out of jail to make room for someone that had 3 beers and went for a ride. the death penalty to someone in a fatal accident, I hope you are kidding, most of the time a pre-meditated murderer is not punished with death. In my neighborhood a sober woman ran a stop sign and a "drunk" (4 beers) driver went through a GREEN light, and the sober woman died. the man who had 4 beers should be put to death? why don't we lower the standards to .01 BAC and throw everyone in jail.
brstilsonMar 12, 2007
The reason prohibition happened is because back then the only way a lot of people had to get a beer or any kind of alcoholic drink was to go to a pub. It wasn't the alcohol the women had a problem with necessarily, it was the bars and the fact their husbands were spending all their time there instead of home with their families.Now, most alcohol is consumed in one's home, and the conditions that led to prohibition no longer exist.On another note, I have met very few women with any sort of intellectual prowess whatsoever. The vast majority of them are irrational and reactionary, with each generation getting worse. Now most of them seem to have this sense of entitlement that they probably got from being daddy's wittle pwincess as well. It's sickening. Feminazism has spawned a generation of worthless soccer moms who demand that the state raise their precious little "angels." Every little issue must be legislated. These women are on the forefront of the "safety over liberty" movement, blaming everything and everybody but themselves for the s**tty job they do raising children.I think the country's forefathers had the right idea in restricting voting rights but executed it the wrong way. They knew that the intelligence of people in crowds drops significantly, and if the country were truly ruled by a majority, they would make bad decisions and/or be easily manipulated by unscrupulous characters. Instead of only allowing Free, White, Adult Male Property Owners to vote, I propose we should make the requirement to vote to be an IQ over 100.
brstilsonMar 12, 2007
"dude, just don't f**king DRINK and DRIVE and you'll be fine."You're an idiot. MADD is no longer just about drinking and driving. They're the new prohibition movement.I'll admit it, I drink and drive quite often. I don't however, DRIVE DRUNK. And yes, there IS a difference. I never have more than one beer in me when I drive, and usually by the time I drive I've been digesting it for a good half hour (so HALF of the 5% alcohol drink I just had has been metabolized).
nobi_wanMar 12, 2007
@ koopa"You aren't GIVEN rights, you are born with these rights.You actually do have the right to drink and drive, but as soon as you injure someone or damage someone's property, you're in the wrong and should be punished."You are right and at the same time you are very, VERY wrong. Yes, you have the right to drink but driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. Drunk driving is like waving a loaded weapon in a crowded room and people that drive drunk should be harshly punished. Period.
cmdrbobMar 15, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://www.margaretsanger.blogspot.com/">http://www.margaretsanger.blogspot.com/</a> Sorry bro. Furthermore, MADD works in the same way. Nazi Socialists do have agendas. It's using the concerned mothers to push their fascist ideals on a nation. There are other ways to deal with drunktards.
jroppenheimerOct 10, 2007
more dangerous.
airstersDec 26, 2007
@siszami'm very sorry about your nephew but you are an idiot. I would state all my reasons for why u are an idiot but my fingers would get to sore and it's 2:30 in the morning so i'm tired
johnstonadApr 7, 2008
theuser, what you just posted is an example of what madd does. using misleading stats to gain support for laws that deny civil liberties. the fact that 72% of drivers who died in accidents with a BAC had a BAC more than .15 is support for the arguement that the legal limit should be raised.