Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Screw M.A.D.D.

In the interest of full disclosure let me first point out that I have never at any time been arrested for, much less convicted of, drunk driving... or any drug offense for that matter. Hopefully this should prevent the Great Collapseing Hrung of emails labasting me as a derelect convict filled with fuming sour grapes.

On second thought... That's probly to much to hope for...

Let me be clear on this. I want to leave no room for wiggling and squirming. Few lobbies this side of Handgun Control have more demonstratably outlived their usefullness like Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

They exist for the sole purpose of, and indeed measure their success by, achieving ever lower standards for the legal limit of B.A.C. (Blood Alchohol Concentration) when operating a vehicle.

If B.A.C. were actually an accurate representation of ones impairment, their cause would at least have some modicrum of merit. Of course... It isn't. The fact is, B.A.C. ignores tolerence, which is really like trying to calculate force without bothering to take acceleration into account.

Medical textbooks will teach you that a B.A.C. of .40 is the LD 50. Meaning its the leathal dose for 50% of the population. That's all good and well... but what they don't tell you is that folks are out there who can blow .6 and show no other symptoms of even being drunk.

We call that tolerence.

For centuries we've known the what makes you passed out, piss in your shoes drunk, won't even give me a decent buzz. Apparently however, to M.A.D.D. this is news.

I understand why B.A.C. is used. After all... its an attempt to enter some small amount of objectivity into this sordid affair. Unfortunately, tolerence pretty much throws objectivity out the window.

We pull out a random number.. say... .1, and we say... if you have a B.A.C. of that... then you can't drive. This of course ignores the fact that many many many people can function just fine at that level. Not to mention that... but at that level, indeed they don't feel drunk at all. Thats that tolerence stuff again.

So how are you supposed to know not to drive if you don't even feel drunk? Now this is exasperated by M.A.D.D. 's never ending quest to lower the afore mentioned randomly chosen number.

See where we're going? How far off is Zero Tolerence?

From another angle...

We have created an excellent source of revenue for the government. Ever considered what percent of the populus has been arrested and convicted for DUI at least 1 time? It's huge. All those fines... millions of dollars in fines... to spend on? Oh sure... it has to be spent on roads... but umm.. more money for the roads frees up more money for Senator Moron's pet project right?

There is an emotional stigma that goes with the crime... which of course is directly associated with all the horror stories M.A.D.D. pounds us over the head with... you know... So and So's daughter was killed by a drunk driver... blah blah...

What about all those daughters that are killed by Sober Drivers?

Somebody want to tell me how we know the booze made all these people bad drivers? Cause I see plenty of people who can't drive worth a damn while they're stone cold sober.

The plain truth is, DUI is a revenue source for the State, and an emotional outlet for mothers who need one. The State collects millions in this type of fine each year... if not month. Therefore the state has a vested interest in seeing the behavior continue. Same with the drug war.

No civilized society benefits from punishment of criminals. It gives them to much of a reason to create them.

No comments: