« Okay, Okay, I'l post on Paris Hilton | Main | Less Blogging »

June 09, 2007


Flintlock Tom

Acknowledged, thanks for the elaboration.


Flintlock Tom

I don't understand your objection to M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)
From what I have seen they push for harsher sentences for repeat, drunk driving, offenders. And the harshest sentences for those who injure others while doing it.
In other words: they push for consequences to irresponsible actions. That seems to be in line with your premise.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Answering your question, it is the position they take that drunk driving is a "super-misdemeanor" and requires mandatory jail time, mandatory prosecution, reserved jail space, etc. There are plenty of laws on the books already that can be enforced to provide consequences for offenses associated with drunk driving.

We are a nation of laws, and we entrusted those who wrote those laws to classify them as to severity. MADD comes along, butts into the middle of all that, and demands that "their" crime of DUII is a "super-crime", and must have different treatment than other misdemeanor crime. If you've been on the inside of the justice system like I have, you know that special treatment for special criminals is the surest way to wreck the balance of the whole system.

Then, of course, if you challenge MADD, you are some sort of unpatriotic asshole to them, even when you point out that spousal abusers, theives and other misdemeanants are getting away with fewer consequences because the Sheriff has to lock up so many drunks, because guys like me get VERY efficient at catching them and there is a special prosecutor who does nothing else but prosecute them (and special defense attorneys who do nothing but defend them. They are usually the sharpest lawyers around).

I could tell you stories all night FT, about much worse dangers to the public that NEVER get prosecuted, while one sip over the line guarantees you 3 nights in the bucket and about $25,000 in related expenses, BEFORE you pay your whopping new insurance bill.

Believe me, it's nothing special, DUII. Just another minor crime, but thanks to MADD, the criminal justice system has to spend a significant part of it's total time on it.

MADD sucks.


I am a charter member of D.A.M.M.

Drunks Against MADD Mothers!

Our motto? "Don't drink and drive. You might hit a bump and spill your drink!"

Seriously. MADD was one of the first manifestations of the Nanny State. And sadly, they were far from the last.

Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX


There were drive-through liquor stores in Colorado too.
I've been suspicious of the ever-shrinking limits for defining alcoholics for some time. Riverdog summed it up well.

Guy S.

Used to be the same in Texas, if memory serves. I DO REMEMBER there being "drive-thru" liquor stores. When I was stationed out DFW way back in the late 70's. I agree whole-heartedly with both you gents, it was much better when the law centered around one BEING RESPONSIBLE / ACCOUNTIBLE for their actions. Speeding used to be handled in the same manner. (Though the dynamics for speed limits has more to do with revenue generation, then it has to do with anything else.) In Nevada (back in the 60's, you could drive as fast as you wanted on the "Superhighways", AS LONG AS YOU DIDN'T CROSS THE LINE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD (solid line or hash mark divider, didn't matter). If you failed to stay with in your lane, regardless of speed, then you didn't have control of your vehicle and were going to be ticketed for same. (there is that pesky personal responsibility thing again *grin*.)


I agree. Completely. Here in Louisiana, until recently, it wasn't illegal to drink and drive. It was illegal to drive drunk, and the driver was supposed to know the difference. But, if a working man was getting off work and stopped at the local convenience store on the way home and bought a beer for the road, it wasn't against the law.

Then the nannies got involved. Waaaa.Waaaa.Waaaaa.

Ya know, sometimes I think we'd be better off if we'd just repeal all the laws passed since 1964.

EDITOR'S NOTE: I concur. That makes us (gasp!) (wait for it!)...............RETROGENARIANS! (the generation which wants to go back).

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad