Bloody Idiot

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Please expand on this and explain it further.

Google it yourself, it's not hard to find.

I provided a link earlier to the founder explaining why she quit.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Google it yourself, it's not hard to find.

I provided a link earlier to the founder explaining why she quit.

Thank for this post, prior to it I wasn't sure if I disliked your or not.

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Thank for this post, prior to it I wasn't sure if I disliked your or not.

I'm not looking up multiple articles on my piece of crap Nokia phone.

It basically relates to the shift MADD has taken from fighting for tougher penalties and more awareness about drinking driving to their recent fights to raise taxes on drinking and constantly trying to lower and lower the legal limit.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Not likely from what I've seen. People generally don't go to the trouble of "preparing" to have between 1 and 3 drinks, it's just too much hassle. The more common response to this new law is "I'm worried about this stupid legislation, I'll just pass on drinking tonight."

It really has done exactly what people said it would. It has affected the person having a drink or two with dinner and hasn't addressed the problem drunk drivers, who are the ones out there creating a major danger on the road at night.

I call bologna.

So many of my friends who used to always drink and drive thinking they weren't drunk when they were hammered out of their mind have now shifted their mindset on drinking and driving with the new law.

2 years ago on New Years, everyone at my friends house drove while drunk or really close to the limit.

This year I hung out with the same crowd and they must have mentioned the new law a dozen times and a couple still did drink and drive, but at least 5 guys didn't drink and drive.

The new law might be working.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Not likely from what I've seen. People generally don't go to the trouble of "preparing" to have between 1 and 3 drinks, it's just too much hassle. The more common response to this new law is "I'm worried about this stupid legislation, I'll just pass on drinking tonight."

It really has done exactly what people said it would. It has affected the person having a drink or two with dinner and hasn't addressed the problem drunk drivers, who are the ones out there creating a major danger on the road at night.

I am sure most people who only have one or two drinks probably still do. It's the ones that figure I am fine just one more it won't hurt are the group it probably effects the most. I am not against people having a drink with dinner, but if you are to the point where the new law effects you,more then likely you have had more then one or two drinks.

That being said they should make the punishment stricter for the really drunk people caught driving.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Iginla

I call bologna.

So many of my friends who used to always drink and drive thinking they weren't drunk when they were hammered out of their mind have now shifted their mindset on drinking and driving with the new law.

2 years ago on New Years, everyone at my friends house drove while drunk or really close to the limit.

This year I hung out with the same crowd and they must have mentioned the new law a dozen times and a couple still did drink and drive, but at least 5 guys didn't drink and drive.

The new law might be working.

The main thing that I got out of this is you sat by while your friends drove drunk... you are an awful friend if I am reading that correctly.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The main thing that I got out of this is you sat by while your friends drove drunk... you are an awful friend if I am reading that correctly.

To be fair his friends are all idiots too. They all deserve each other. Hopefully the only people they kill on the roads are themselves.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Please expand on this and explain it further.

As far as I know the original founder and the recent president of MADD have quit lately due to the focus change at MADD. As they have been shifting to a more no alcohol at all policy rather than dont drink and drive.
Claims of the religious right using the organization to push their agenda has been a leading cause.

"Candy Lightner says that "police ought to be concentrating their resources on arresting drunk drivers—not those drivers who happen to have been drinking. I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction." 3 She is disturbed by MADD's shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general.
Ms. Lightner left MADD and is concerned that the organization that she herself created is changing its focus. "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." 4 Lightner emphasized the importance of distinguishing between drinking alcohol on one hand and drunk driving on the other"

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by ernie

Never said I was an expert just saying what happens in an industry I have worked in and close ties in (relatives who own restaurants). Hell you don't have to believe me simply google and you'll find multiple sources on the internet that say the same thing on what food costs SHOULD be if you are managing things properly and that is 25-35% of what is on the plate. The same as even some of the highest marked up alcohol that isn't wine by the glass. Not all foods are equal...steak and seafood is a struggle to mark up in the same manner because no one wants to pay $35 for a rib eye unless you are at a premium steakhouse. Not all alcohols are equal...wine by the bottle and beer for a restaurant will be higher than simple one ounce drinks (rye and coke etc). On a MOST bills, not all of course, food is the predominant expense for the guest compared to alcohol that by the end of the night food is far and away the biggest source of revenues. So while I'm not an expert I do know that if your food cost per dollar sold is the same as your alcohol cost per dollar sold or near to it and 80% of the nights revenues are food then a restaurant is indeed making the bulk of their money on things other than alcohol. I'm not saying they don't make money on alcohol as they do but the cost of goods sold on average for alcohol in most restaurants is the same as it is for the food on the plate and they simply sell more food (and soft drinks, coffee, tea etc). And it also doesn't mean the restaurant business is easy. Labor will be another 25-30% of your cost (you tend to want 55-60% of your expenses to be from cost of good sold and labor). When everything else is added into the mix (overheads etc) a good restaurant can turn a 5% or so profit. It's a hard business to make money in and an easy one to lose money in but quite simply alcohol sales is not the make it or break it in a properly run place nowadays.

So the question is why do they sell alcohol? Well because they can make a profit with it (never said otherwise) and because it adds to the completion of the restaurant and, yes, the dining experience. But we aren't talking about one restaurant being supposedly impacted but every restaurant. The playing field is equal. People are not going to stay home and not eat at restaurants because they might not be able to have a beer. They'd already do that if it was the case. People are not going to stay away from bars because one in the group will be a DD. At least I've never ever seen any group of people stay away from a bar because they have a DD. Hell a bar will welcome a DD because that DD is going to drink soft drinks all night and likely order some appetizers etc. They don't lose profit on a DD. I will concede that such a move (especially in the states for instance) would have an effect it was a state by state thing instead of a federal thing for restaurants at or near state borders.


Now I know people will think this dirty pool but answer honestly...how would you feel if the person driving the kids on your school bus had just finished a meal where he/she had "a beer or two"? My guess is you wouldn't be happy. Not happy at all. I certainly wouldn't be and if I'm not happy about that why the hell would I want you behind the wheel after "a beer or two"?

I do think that there is a large gap between one beer or two so I dont think they should be in the same question.

[Devils'Advocate]

I don't get it. "I don't mean to diminish the dangers of drinking and driving, but MADD are an evil organization that manipulates data to make the problem seem bigger than it actually is and alcohol isn't really THAT much of a problem out on the roads. Heck, poor drivers in general are a much worse problem." That "I don't mean to diminish the dangers" seems about as true as "I don't mean to pry, but..." or "I don't mean to sound racist, but..."

I dislike MADD for a variety of reasons (prime being how much of their charity money goes to internal salaries (67%). But I am not going to go ripping at their mission since they are still the largest voice against drunk driving out there.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

As far as I know the original founder and the recent president of MADD have quit lately due to the focus change at MADD. As they have been shifting to a more no alcohol at all policy rather than dont drink and drive.
Claims of the religious right using the organization to push their agenda has been a leading cause.

That is odd since it seems to be FOX and other right-leaning media outlets that seem to be outing MADD as a corrupt organization.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171383,00.html
http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/belt...us-prohibition

[polak]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't get it. "I don't mean to diminish the dangers of drinking and driving, but MADD are an evil organization that manipulates data to make the problem seem bigger than it actually is and alcohol isn't really THAT much of a problem out on the roads. Heck, poor drivers in general are a much worse problem." That "I don't mean to diminish the dangers" seems about as true as "I don't mean to pry, but..." or "I don't mean to sound racist, but..."

I dislike MADD for a variety of reasons (prime being how much of their charity money goes to internal salaries (67%). But I am not going to go ripping at their mission since they are still the largest voice against drunk driving out there.

If thats what their focus was then I wouldn't be ripping them.

When your own founder quits and speaks out, especially from an organization with so much emotion attached to it, than you know there's a problem.

[Devils'Advocate]

Are you referring to this person here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Lightner

She quit the organization in 1985. That's a few years ago now. More recently she has said that she thinks the organization is moving in the right direction and likes their most recent suggestions. Or are you referring to somebody else?

[polak]

Thats who I'm referring to. This article from 2002 specifically.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-035702-2222r/

I'm also against a lot of other stuff they talk about. For example this report from August of this year, mainly:

- How they are against privately owned liquor stores
- The desire to manage alcohol consumption by the public
- Odd stats (suprise) regarding Alberta that seem to ignore population growth and comparing only one specific brand of beer when comparing alcohol prices across the country?
- How they are against U-Brew type brands.

http://www.madd.ca/media/docs/MADD-C...ugust-2012.pdf

I'm also against the lowering of the legal limit which they have pubically supported numerous times.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/madd-disappoin...limit-1.268174
http://madd.ca/madd2/en/media/stories/n20120303.htm

And their stance about maintaining the drinking age at 19 (I think this is the most ridiculous thing on the planet. If the government feels comfortable sending you into war, they should also let you into a bar for a beer)

http://madd.ca/madd2/en/media/stories/n20121107.htm

None of those issues are directly related to the reduction and awareness of Drinking and Driving. Once again it seems their only strategy is to reduce drinking. Where will they stop? Instead of going after the people who drink and drive, they're going after the people who just drink.

Thats my problem with them.

Oh and this is only related to MADD Canada. The main US version has also done some off-putting things.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I don't get it. "I don't mean to diminish the dangers of drinking and driving, but MADD are an evil organization that manipulates data to make the problem seem bigger than it actually is and alcohol isn't really THAT much of a problem out on the roads. Heck, poor drivers in general are a much worse problem." That "I don't mean to diminish the dangers" seems about as true as "I don't mean to pry, but..." or "I don't mean to sound racist, but..."

I dislike MADD for a variety of reasons (prime being how much of their charity money goes to internal salaries (67%). But I am not going to go ripping at their mission since they are still the largest voice against drunk driving out there.

Except their mission continues to skew from drunk driving to neo-prohibitionist. You can express concern over the direction and tactics of an organization without diminishing the seriousness of the underlying cause. I have massive issues with the Komen foundation over their recent political moves, but that doesn't mean I'm diminishing the seriousness of breast cancer.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by ernie

Only 1 or 2 beer at dinner is not an excuse to get behind the wheel UNLESS you have concrete experimental evidence that those 1 or 2 drinks do not impact you in any way.

A bit OT but I worked as a research assistant for a psychology experiment involving intoxication, and we had a police calibrated breathalyzer in the lab.

Needless to say we also tried it on ourselves a bit - for myself (6'1 180 pounds) 3 beers in 1 hour and I would blow under 0.08. Had to level off after that to stay under. No idea on 0.05.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by valo403

You can express concern over the direction and tactics of an organization without diminishing the seriousness of the underlying cause.

I think this thread proves otherwise. A thread about the risks of drinking and driving has quickly jumped into "the problem is over exaggerated" and "the group most known for fighting drinking and driving are a corrupt organization willing to manipulate data to overstate the problem". I think going after MADD DOES weaken the battle against drinking and driving.

I do believe that tar and feathering the organization that most people associate with fighting drunk driving would hurt the message. Or at least obfuscate the message. It definitely changes the subject from the message to the messenger.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

A bit OT but I worked as a research assistant for a psychology experiment involving intoxication, and we had a police calibrated breathalyzer in the lab.

Needless to say we also tried it on ourselves a bit - for myself (6'1 180 pounds) 3 beers in 1 hour and I would blow under 0.08. Had to level off after that to stay under. No idea on 0.05.

That doesn't mean you weren't impacted. You weren't legally drunk but data does show that immediately on consumption of alcohol the human body is impacted. It's different for everyone of course. I just don't see the problem with having a zero tolerance law that is tiered. Fines up to a certain level and then more serious consequences at the higher levels. Not unlike speeding. it should have very little impact on anyones life.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by ernie

That doesn't mean you weren't impacted. You weren't legally drunk but data does show that immediately on consumption of alcohol the human body is impacted. It's different for everyone of course. I just don't see the problem with having a zero tolerance law that is tiered. Fines up to a certain level and then more serious consequences at the higher levels. Not unlike speeding. it should have very little impact on anyones life.

What do you qualify as zero tolerance? I assume you don't mean one drink and a person needs to destroy their license so there must be something subjective.

Alcohol occurs naturally in your blood so a very precise test would pick that up. If I have a beer at lunch can I drive myself to supper or is it a 24 hour zero tolerance rule?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I think this thread proves otherwise. A thread about the risks of drinking and driving has quickly jumped into "the problem is over exaggerated" and "the group most known for fighting drinking and driving are a corrupt organization willing to manipulate data to overstate the problem". I think going after MADD DOES weaken the battle against drinking and driving.

I do believe that tar and feathering the organization that most people associate with fighting drunk driving would hurt the message. Or at least obfuscate the message. It definitely changes the subject from the message to the messenger.

Well if that's how you've decided to read this thread there's not much I can do about it, but absolutely nowhere does anyone even insinuate that the problem of drunk driving is over-exaggerated. What Polak pointed out (or attempted to) was that the statistics utilized aren't a true reflection of what they are being presented as. There's nothing wrong with calling for accountability and honesty, regardless of the cause. Calling for MADD to be accountable, both through the usage of clear and honest statistics and transparency regarding their agenda, is completely legitimate. If doing that harms the effort against drunk driving perhaps you should be asking questions of MADD.