- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: MADD “chapters”
Posted on 4/15/25 at 12:17 pm to CR4090
Posted on 4/15/25 at 12:17 pm to CR4090
quote:
I said they shouldn't be treated the same when it comes the BAC. AND. if they both blow .08 they would be considered legally drunk. It's a one size fits all approach. Hell, neither one may be drunk.
I’m still not understanding what you think the alternative is.
If your stance is that 0.08 is too low, OK. I can certainly see the argument there. But you seem to be saying that they shouldn’t use BAC at all (despite the fact that, as has been said, BAC already accounts for the vast majority of physiological and situational differences).
If we aren’t going to use an objective measure like BAC, what’s the alternative? Rely exclusively on a cop’s best judgement? Surely you see the potential problems with that approach.
2
Posted on 4/15/25 at 1:18 pm to lostinbr
One objective thing I would change is allowing a cop to pull you over for certain reasons (not signaling, rolling through a stop sign, while turning not turning into proper lane, etc). I would bet 95% of these stops are because cops think they have been drinking so they find a shite excuse. Now, if you exhibit impairment, absolutely you should get pulled over…but not on something that could be argued to be entrapment
Posted on 4/15/25 at 1:22 pm to Lake08
quote:
In my older age, I’ve been trying to do more volunteer work with different agencies and I must say I was rather “alarmed” at the level of hate these people have. Everyone that I met that night were also volunteers and hadn’t been personally affected by a dd (thank goodness). According to them, if you have ANYTHING to drink and get behind the wheel you belong in jail for years. These people seemed unhinged. Anyone have experience with MADD? Did I just have a bad experience?
They are loons.
Posted on 4/15/25 at 1:38 pm to Lake08
quote:
MADD
I'm a member of a similar organization called DAMM
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Posted on 4/15/25 at 2:42 pm to lostinbr
As I said earlier, I don't know a good alternative. But that doesn't make the current system right.
My main argument is that .08 is too low. And it is too arbitrary when dealing with each individuals alcohol tolerance.
So you have absolute faith in the research done? Because no one has ever slanted their research for financial or political gain, right?
And I trust the cops to about as much as I trust the researchers who tell us that based on some random number a person is legally intoxicated. Regardless of what.
I wish there was a better way to do it. And even more so stop people from drunk driving. But that doesn't mean we should just bend over and accept a flawed system.
My main argument is that .08 is too low. And it is too arbitrary when dealing with each individuals alcohol tolerance.
quote:
BAC already accounts for the vast majority of physiological and situational differences).
So you have absolute faith in the research done? Because no one has ever slanted their research for financial or political gain, right?
And I trust the cops to about as much as I trust the researchers who tell us that based on some random number a person is legally intoxicated. Regardless of what.
I wish there was a better way to do it. And even more so stop people from drunk driving. But that doesn't mean we should just bend over and accept a flawed system.
Posted on 4/15/25 at 2:49 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
was chugging beers at his MADD meeting.
That's a great idea
Posted on 4/15/25 at 2:54 pm to Lake08
quote:
I am referring to comparing texting vs drinking. A law is a law….right?
Texting is much more dangerous, and penalties should be much more severe.
Posted on 4/15/25 at 3:33 pm to CR4090
quote:
CR4090
You’re a fricking moron, dawg. Damn
Posted on 4/15/25 at 5:59 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
I thought this thread was about the magazine
I thought Morticia Addams bra size.
Posted on 4/15/25 at 6:05 pm to LSUtoBOOT
Haha, you're old.
Posted on 4/15/25 at 8:01 pm to wadewilson
I’ve never had ONE MADD supporter answer my question regarding the comparison between texting and drinking…
Posted on 4/15/25 at 8:22 pm to Lake08
quote:
I’ve never had ONE MADD supporter answer my question regarding the comparison between texting and drinking…
They don't see anything wrong with it. It's socially acceptable.
And it is MUCH more dangerous than drunk driving.
Posted on 4/15/25 at 8:52 pm to wadewilson
Me and a buddy were driving to a fishing tournament in the middle of nowhere (the Arizona desert). Black smoke ahead. We're the second car on the scene of a head on collision. Pieces of a car everywhere. Through a guard rail off the road we see a Ford F-150 in flames. We get out. Female voices screaming like I've never hear. Then quickly...silence. We heard them in agony and die. I'll never forget that feeling.
Turns out it was a drunk driver that we assumed was dead in the road crossed centerline hitting the females. The drunk lived. The three females died (wife, daughter, and granddaughter of the Chief of Fire for the city of Globe, AZ). Three generation of one man's family wiped off the earth because someone CHOSE to drink and drive!
Unless you can't understand the word denial it is only a person in denial that would be lenient or sympathetic to the drunk driver.
If it's up to me death penalty. THERE IS NO EXCUSE
Turns out it was a drunk driver that we assumed was dead in the road crossed centerline hitting the females. The drunk lived. The three females died (wife, daughter, and granddaughter of the Chief of Fire for the city of Globe, AZ). Three generation of one man's family wiped off the earth because someone CHOSE to drink and drive!
Unless you can't understand the word denial it is only a person in denial that would be lenient or sympathetic to the drunk driver.
If it's up to me death penalty. THERE IS NO EXCUSE
Posted on 4/15/25 at 9:03 pm to Bayou
Bayou,
If they were texting vs drunk would you still be in favor of death penalty??
If they were texting vs drunk would you still be in favor of death penalty??
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:13 am to Bayou
You're right. We should have the death penalty for texting and driving too.
And why stop there?
Anybody that hits a pedestrian, or child, or cyclist should be summarily executed.
And why stop there?
Anybody that hits a pedestrian, or child, or cyclist should be summarily executed.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:31 am to el Gaucho
quote:
ETA: they can’t lower it below .02 because the machine has a .02 margin of error and things like orange juice and energy drinks will set it off
That’s not even close to being true.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 8:36 am to Lake08
quote:
Bayou, If they were texting vs drunk would you still be in favor of death penalty??
Knighting for drunk drivers is certainly an interesting position to take
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:14 am to Lake08
Again, I am not at all defending DD’s, however I’ve asked a simple question to a handful of people regarding the same penalty for texting vs drinking….not a word. Crickets.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 9:20 am to Lake08
quote:
Again, I am not at all defending DD’s, however I’ve asked a simple question to a handful of people regarding the same penalty for texting vs drinking….not a word. Crickets.
Any distracted driving needs penalties. If you rear end me at a red light, I don't care if you're drunk, texting or painting your toenails... all distracted driving should be punishable.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News