DUI Gulag

[Mark of Zorro]

I have often posted that laws and attitudes against drinking and driving are WAYYYYY out of proportion to the danger and the offense. And yes, I know that in response to that statement and this thread I am going to receive a whole bunch of emotional, fact-less condemnation also out of proportion to what I just said plus a whole bunch of reading into the statement things that are not there.
I recently posted about this and got some "statistics" in return. And in looking for some stats of my own I noticed that I could not find any straight forward stats on the subject. There is always some sort of qualifier of the type that any fool knows will be overlooked by the overwhelming majority of fools out there. One such qualifier is the term "alcohol-related accident". That means that even if only a passenger had been drinking, its now an alcohol related accident, which means nothing but gives you bigger numbers to work with. "Alcohol related accident" DOES NOT mean the accident was caused by alcohol or being legally too drunk to drive. Yet, everyone reads it that way. Thus they think drinking any amount and driving is tantamount to murder. And thus so many support draconian laws and policing that in fact only robs us of freedom and money and does not really save any lives.
I have always felt alone in this argument, but in looking for information I found that there are groups that agree with me. Something they like to point out is that since police are going after low BAC drivers who are not a real danger, that they are too busy to focus on the really dangerous repeat offenders who are drunk out of their minds. After all, standing at a sobriety checkpoint, you are not going to see the guy swerving everywhere on a different street.
The insanity of DUI laws and attitudes has been clear to me for a quite a while, but I always cited the money factor. The whole thing has built up in to quite an industry, similar to the marijuana crackdown. And while I often pointed out how a result has been fewer parties, closed bars and clubs and less drinking and fun over all, I never thought it was an actual goal. But it seems that it is. Here is what Candy Lighter, founder of MADD had to say when she QUIT the group in 1985:
"[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."
DUI BLOG: MADD and the New Prohibition
Also from that page:

MADD's biggest victory on this front was a nationwide blood-alcohol threshold of .08, down from .10. But when two-thirds of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involve blood-alcohol levels of .14 and above, and the average fatal accident occurs at .17, this move doesn't make much sense. It's like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 to catch people who drive 100 miles per hour.

And here is more to read about this:
Driver's Against Madd Methods-- DAMM Home
DUI Gulag -- TRUE FACTS MADD PROPAGANDA WILL NEVER TELL YOU
Like I say, I know I am going to get a bunch of emotionalism in response to this. I know one thing that I will be accused of is favoring allowing people to drive after drinking insane amounts of alcohol, rather than just allowing the low amounts like I have stated. Or I will be accused of not caring or other such nonsense.
So I will ask you this: Does anything I have written here make sense to you? If favor strict DUI laws or even zero tolerance, what FACTS led to you that belief, and is your mind still open at all to consider facts that would challenge that position?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

More to ponder: Is MADD. still a big organisation in the US ? - Yahoo! Answers

Read the post starting with this:

MADD has become one of the most monstrous and evil political organizations in America today. Even Candy Lightner, its founder, became sickened by the way her group was hijacked by self-serving "Law an' Order" politicians, greedy charity-marketing weasels, and neo-Prohibitionist fascists. And so she quit her own group in disgust only a few years after creating it.

 

[thomas]

Thanks for posting this, Mark, very interesting reading.

Frankly, I wasn't aware of MADD before. While I'm certainly against drink-driving it appears that this organisation has been completely hijacked by religious zealots. Good to know that such extremism is virtually impossible in Japan.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Thanks for posting this, Mark, very interesting reading.

Thank you for reading!

Frankly, I wasn't aware of MADD before. While I'm certainly against drink-driving it appears that this organisation has been completely hijacked by religious zealots.

Wherever you are, I think they have send ripples across the globe.

Good to know that such extremism is virtually impossible in Japan.

As far as the aspect of an influential group of people based here, yes.

But on the other hand, I point out the fact that Japan has a zero tolerance policy with regard to alcohol and the only test available is the breath test, which is so inaccurate its criminal.

So actually, there is extremism here in Japan on this topic, just of a different nature.

Do you know how low DUI fatalities are in Japan? So low, they just throw the number in the "other" category. Seriously. So how did we get to zero tolerance again? Cause the number has been low since before zero tolerance. Meanwhile, other factors are killing so many people....what is wrong with this picture?

I can't have a couple beers and drive home two hours later...even the next morning I cannot tell you if the breath test will acquit or convict me...but old people who don't seem to be able to see are all over the place. Believe me, two beers does not affect me in a negative way in anything save maybe darts. Sleepy and/or angry though...that is when I should not be driving...but I could with no fear of check points or anything. And you know what? I am angrier than I used to be because I cannot go out and have some responsible drinks these days. I am too far out in the country to afford to drink AND get a taxi or daiko. This whole thing is ill advised from every aspect.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It seems I made a little error in the reporting of "alcohol related accidents". Drunken passengers don't count. But drunken pedestrians and bicyclists do. So if a sober driver has a drunk fool on foot jump in front of them, its an alcohol related accident.

And that brings me to another point of frustration. How does one get oneself hit by a car? Whenever a human pedestrian gets creamed, they always blame the car. But if an animal gets creamed, they call it a suicide of stupidity. Ummmmm.....NO. Whether other animal or human, it is pretty much ALWAYS the lack of attention of the one crossing the road on foot. Pedestrians have EVERY advantage in avoiding getting hit by a car. Cars are big, noisy things that travel in very clear directions and paths 99 percent of the time. A pedestrian can stop on a dime, hear without obstruction, and swivel their head mid stride. Meanwhile, drivers are at the mercy of momentum, can't hear pedestrians coming and have obstructed vision. And while pedestrians know exactly where all the cars are (on the road) drivers have no idea where and when a pedestrian will appear.

Yet, when a pedestrian gets creamed, they blame the driver automatically.

And when there is an accident involving alcohol, they blame the driver automatically.

And when a careless drunk pedestrian gets creamed, the sober driver takes the fall. This is nonsense.