Prohibitionist Scum
Once again, MADD shows its true colors.
This group has long since ceased to be at all about drunk driving. A drunk driving group would concentrate on making sure that repeat offenders are taken off the road. A drunk driving group would be focusing on getting taxis to bars so that those who have had a few too many have an easy way to get home without risking anyone.
Most of all, a drunk driving group would be focusing on DRIVING.
This article on Reason magazine's website discusses MADD's latest angle. They are trying to get alcohol banned from NYC commuter trains.
One possibility, is that they are simply morons. Morons would not realize that by banning the alcohol from the trains, they will make some commuters drink before they get on. They will drink more, so they can be sure to maintain a buzz, and they will do so faster so that they can make their trains. Let's face it - you're not in such a rush to get something if you know you can get it whenever you feel like it.
There's another possibility. Let's be honest. MADD is a prohibitionist group. They only care about slowly lowering the legal drinking limit. They are trying to ban all alcohol altogether.
This post details it best. In New Mexico, a zero tolerance law has mandated that anything more than 1 drink is legally drunk. What is the result?
Thousands of people who are not a danger are jailed.
But what's worse? As 'Bgist' says, "If I'm legally drunk after 1.5 beers, (when I'm still sober, and competent to operate any machinery) then where is the incentive to NOT order a THIRD. OR FOURTH. OR FIFTH. OR TENTH."
Is this all part of their plan?
They always trot out numbers of "alcohol related auto accidents." There is never any indication of whether alcohol was actually a factor, or whether there was simply traces of alcohol found in the bloodstream of a victim. This artificially inflates numbers. This costs them credibility. Just as Greenpeace has ceased to be credible organization by purposely exaggerating or using flawed numbers to gain credibility (and admitting on multiple occasions to having done so).
What you have is basically a prohibitionist group which exploits emotionally vulnerable victims of accidents, as well as an army of useful idiots, to further their cause of pushing their lifestyle on other people. Take a look at their list of corporate sponsors. Most of them are auto makers or insurance companies. Can you say "protection money?"
As I pointed out in a previous post, if people really cared about auto safety, hands-free cell phones would be banned as well, and elderly drivers would be rigorously tested. I have always advocated no mercy for truly drunk drivers. But these dirtbags are only concerned with dumbing-down the legal definition of 'drunk' until you're already there. You make people sneak around to get a drink, and you wonder why they end up being funny about it.
This group has long since ceased to be at all about drunk driving. A drunk driving group would concentrate on making sure that repeat offenders are taken off the road. A drunk driving group would be focusing on getting taxis to bars so that those who have had a few too many have an easy way to get home without risking anyone.
Most of all, a drunk driving group would be focusing on DRIVING.
This article on Reason magazine's website discusses MADD's latest angle. They are trying to get alcohol banned from NYC commuter trains.
One possibility, is that they are simply morons. Morons would not realize that by banning the alcohol from the trains, they will make some commuters drink before they get on. They will drink more, so they can be sure to maintain a buzz, and they will do so faster so that they can make their trains. Let's face it - you're not in such a rush to get something if you know you can get it whenever you feel like it.
There's another possibility. Let's be honest. MADD is a prohibitionist group. They only care about slowly lowering the legal drinking limit. They are trying to ban all alcohol altogether.
This post details it best. In New Mexico, a zero tolerance law has mandated that anything more than 1 drink is legally drunk. What is the result?
Thousands of people who are not a danger are jailed.
But what's worse? As 'Bgist' says, "If I'm legally drunk after 1.5 beers, (when I'm still sober, and competent to operate any machinery) then where is the incentive to NOT order a THIRD. OR FOURTH. OR FIFTH. OR TENTH."
Is this all part of their plan?
They always trot out numbers of "alcohol related auto accidents." There is never any indication of whether alcohol was actually a factor, or whether there was simply traces of alcohol found in the bloodstream of a victim. This artificially inflates numbers. This costs them credibility. Just as Greenpeace has ceased to be credible organization by purposely exaggerating or using flawed numbers to gain credibility (and admitting on multiple occasions to having done so).
What you have is basically a prohibitionist group which exploits emotionally vulnerable victims of accidents, as well as an army of useful idiots, to further their cause of pushing their lifestyle on other people. Take a look at their list of corporate sponsors. Most of them are auto makers or insurance companies. Can you say "protection money?"
As I pointed out in a previous post, if people really cared about auto safety, hands-free cell phones would be banned as well, and elderly drivers would be rigorously tested. I have always advocated no mercy for truly drunk drivers. But these dirtbags are only concerned with dumbing-down the legal definition of 'drunk' until you're already there. You make people sneak around to get a drink, and you wonder why they end up being funny about it.
posted by Obi-Wandreas, The Funky Viking | 9:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home