Destroy MADD
Mothers Against Drunk Driving: I used to think them a decent bunch of folks who did a wonderful job of educating folks about the dangers to oneself and (more importantly) others of drunken driving. I believe that I’ve even given them money. Who could oppose their agenda? As it turns out, anyone with any wit whatsoever. These harridans are not so much opposed to drunken driving (something which is a problem and should be punished), but opposed to all consumption of alcohol. Read these quotes from them and their fellow-travellers:
Lowering the legal [arrest] standard will be a deterrent for light drinkers as well as heavy drinkers. There is no safe blood alcohol level, and for that reason, responsible drinking and driving means no drinking and driving.—Catherine Prescott, former MADD President
…we do not want to overlook the casual drinker. If you choose to drink, you should never drive. We will not tolerate drinking and driving-period.—MADD President, Karolyn Nunnallee
Driving is a very serious and complex task. The thought that it can be successfully combined with alcohol on the part of the driver or even the passengers defies any logic I can imagine.—Wendy Hamilton, former MADD President
If .08% is good, .05% is better. That’s where we’re headed, it doesn’t mean that we should get there all at once. But ultimately it should be .02%.—Steve Simon, Chairman, Minnesota State DUI Task Force
Bull-fucking-shit. There are plenty of safe blood alcohol levels. There are also plenty of unsafe blood alcohol levels. The heart of intelligence is learning to discriminate, to identify where in a continuum a factor becomes an issue. These bluestockings obviously have not just far too much time on their liver-spotted hands, but also no scientific sense at all. Had they such sense, they would no that it’s not one or two—or even several—drinks which endanger, but many. Fewer, true, than is necessary to be truly drunken (e.g. one may still be able to walk & talk and yet be unfit to drive): but more than 0.
Perhaps someone should get these spinsters a good stiff drink in order to demonstrate, in terms their walnut-sized brains might possibly understand (although I doubt it: 2 + 2 = 4 is doubtless the sort of thing which passes for high learning amongst their sorry sort), that a single drink does not a drunk make. I’m in favour of prosecution of real drunken driving: it’s unsafe enough that a very good case can be made that merely doing it is endangerment of others, much like firing a weapon into a crowd—even if no-one is struck, all were in danger. But there’s a very real difference between driving drunk and driving having had a drink or two or three.
