Actually, a drunk walker is more likely to die than a drunk driver per mile traveled.

Weaver95: andrew131: Actually, a drunk walker is more likely to die than a drunk driver per mile traveled.

I don't think they're going to be able to wipe out as many people as they would if they were driving though.

Drunk driver in a pickup vs. bus full of nuns: dead or hurt penguins all over the place.

Drunk walker vs. bus full of nuns: lots of pissed off 'guins beating a drunk with their rulers ;)

Churches don't like the competition of a neighborhood meeting place that's more fun than them.

Mormons tend to be very nice, very tolerant people outside of their own territory. Except when it comes to gays in California, but that's another story. Inside their territory, they get a little weird.

My folks had a big house in Nephi, a couple of hours south of SLC. I stayed there for a year restoring the house, and would mow their huge lawn on their riding mower, with long hair, a Bart Simpson "eat my shorts, man" shirt, holding a beer and smoking a cigarette. Carloads of Mormon families would drive by, slow down, point, and basically act like they were watching a wild animal in Africa. Cracked me up.

My folks are devout Mormons, but after a while even they couldn't stand it. They live in Phoenix now ;)

MADD's lost perspective. They've become a teetotalling organization. They don't just want to stop drunk driving. They don't want people to drink at all which is a dangerous attitude.

doglover: MADD is so horrible I support drunk drivers simply because they are the biggest group directly opposed to them.

I would be happy to back an actual anti-MADD organization.

It's called DAMM (new window).

Drunks Against Mad Mothers. Really ;)

A drunk guy walks into a bar. Ouch!

Fun fact:

There are no women on the board that heads MADD.

Ugh, neither of those groups will be happy so long as anyone, anywhere, is enjoying a drink.

shivashakti: MADD's lost perspective Been hijacked. They've become a teetotalling organization. They don't just want to stop drunk driving. They don't want people to drink at all which is a dangerous attitude.

FTFall

And before somebody asks for a citation:

"Candy Lightner, MADD's founder, says she disassociated herself from the movement in 1985 because she believed the organization was headed in the wrong direction. 'It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned,' said Mrs. Lightner, who founded MADD after her daughter was killed
by a drunk driver. 'I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.'"
The Washington Times, August 2002

It's getting harder to find fresh pics of those rustbuckets.

shivashakti: MADD's lost perspective. They've become a teetotalling organization. They don't just want to stop drunk driving. They don't want people to drink at all which is a dangerous attitude.

They're like any advocacy group that has reached it's original goal. They have to find some other excuse to stay in business otherwise the people who work there would have to go out and find another job.

How much trouble could you get in for peeing on that temple?

Okay. We have an unemployment spike right now, and many people don't like drunk driving. Let's use our heads here, guys. The answer is so simple; it's right there in front of you.

Government-paid designated drivers.

BAM. You're welcome.

Flissss: How much trouble could you get in for peeing on that temple?

You'd have to get caught first. Planning to post the act on You Tube?

FTA: "When he got a little rowdy, they threw him out, and he got in his car and drove around, and he hit our daughter. Three times the legal limit."

Their daughter was 54 years old?

kxs401: Ugh, neither of those groups will be happy so long as anyone, anywhere, is enjoying a drinklife.

FTFY. Morons...er...Mormons are extremely anti-fun.

festus: Many countries have "locals" that are no more than a block from most houses.

Sensible and logical thinking.

Countries that don't do this, or allow this, are complicit in encouraging drinking and driving.

Telling Americans "it works well in every other country" will only make them hate it more.

shivashakti: MADD's lost perspective. They've become a teetotalling organization. They don't just want to stop drunk driving. They don't want people to drink at all which is a dangerous attitude.


Things a true anti drunk driving organization could better invest their resources on at this point:

* Lobbying for increased public transit in urban areas, especially at night/closing time

* Carpooling/shuttling projects in rural areas

* Reduced cab fares at night/closing time

* Insurance allowances that would permit cab drivers to drive your car home for you (they do this in Canada)

* GPS driven auto-pilot technology

Elvis Da King: Flissss: How much trouble could you get in for peeing on that temple?

You'd have to get caught first. Planning to post the act on You Tube?

No, that's just the 1st thing I think of when I see that thing.

lobootomy: festus: Many countries have "locals" that are no more than a block from most houses.

And God love 'em. I had to go to a POS small Pennsylvania town for a relative's funeral and there were no hotels or motels in the town. NONE. There were two Bed and Breakfasts, and both were run by a fundamentalist Christian family who didn't allow alcohol on the premises.

We were close enough to walk to the church for the funeral, and on the way back I saw a house with a neon sign in the window. A bar! Right in the middle of a neighborhood!

I got farked up that weekend. Bonus: it was Pennsylvania, so Coors Light and Bud Light was 75 cents a bottle in 2005. I like the harder liquor, but I was buying rounds for everyone in the bar because I could do it for less than $15. You only have to do that for one night before you become the most popular person there the next night.

For three glorious nights I got myself good and shiatfaced, then woke up all alcohol smelly and ate breakfast with the teetotalers. I adhered to their law and mine.

It was the first "local" I had ever been to. I went to another one in Columbus, Ohio a year later. I think they are an outstanding idea.

cool story, bro.

/also sounds like a grand idea.

My ex got a DUI last night, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

I live in a tiny town, yet it seems to rack up a hell of an amount of drink drivers. Every week there's a few in the local paper court section. Yet the thing is, you know who these people are, but you still see them driving around after they get caught!

shivashakti: MADD's lost perspective. They've become a teetotalling organization. They don't just want to stop drunk driving. They don't want people to drink at all which is a dangerous attitude.

Alf_Garnett:They're like any advocacy group that has reached it's original goal. They have to find some other excuse to stay in business otherwise the people who work there would have to go out and find another job.

I think it was often counterproductive from the beginning. Most states were already 21 by the time MADD was founded in 1980, but they pushed hard to make it 21 across the board and set-in-stone. IMHO, this may have increased irresponsible drinking and drunk driving in the long run.

MADD founder Candice Lightner: Lightner stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ... I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".[4] That year, Lightner left her position with MADD.

untaken_name: Okay. We have an unemployment spike right now, and many people don't like drunk driving. Let's use our heads here, guys. The answer is so simple; it's right there in front of you.

Government-paid designated drivers.

BAM. You're welcome.

That will hinder the DUI revenue.

almex: untaken_name: Okay. We have an unemployment spike right now, and many people don't like drunk driving. Let's use our heads here, guys. The answer is so simple; it's right there in front of you.

Government-paid designated drivers.

BAM. You're welcome.

That will hinder the DUI revenue.

Yes but they can charge a lot of new taxes in its place to pay for the designated drivers, and plus there'll be a whole new bureaucracy! Win/win!

/s

More evidence that the neo-prohibitionists at MADD are more interested in throwing their morality around than actually reducing the number of drunk-drivers on the road. But why let objective results get in the way of a good moral crusade. *sigh*

DrunkArse: * Insurance allowances that would permit cab drivers to drive your car home for you (they do this in Canada)

That is a brilliant idea. You could even pitch it as a "job creation" thing, which this crap economy needs.

lobootomy: MxSam: but you still see them driving around after they get caught!

Since you are in Ireland, your mileage may vary, but here in the US most states will automatically suspend your license for a week after arrest, but then you are allowed to drive until your court date since you have only been accused, not convicted, of a crime. Technically, the automatic suspension would be unconstitutional, but drunk driving laws in the US have grand leeway when it comes to due process.

I mean people keep driving even after court etc, when they are banned. The penalty is a 1 year ban with an extended driving test before you get back on the road. People dont give a shiat I think.

Also, hate seeing people who are clearly drunk on the roads, makes me rage hard.

pdkl95: More evidence that the neo-prohibitionists at MADD are more interested in throwing their morality around than actually reducing the number of drunk-drivers on the road. But why let objective results get in the way of a good moral crusade. *sigh*

DrunkArse: * Insurance allowances that would permit cab drivers to drive your car home for you (they do this in Canada)

That is a brilliant idea. You could even pitch it as a "job creation" thing, which this crap economy needs.


I nearly fell off my barstool when I saw it in action. Vancouver BC. Cab shows up, two drivers. One drives you home, the other drives your car... Pure genius.


That is the number one reason someone drives drunk. They don't want to fetch their car the next day because of work, inconvenience, etc.

shivashakti: MADD's lost perspective. They've become a teetotalling organization. They don't just want to stop drunk driving. They don't want people to drink at all which is a dangerous attitude.

The term for this is mission creep.

lobootomy: festus: Many countries have "locals" that are no more than a block from most houses.

And God love 'em. I had to go to a POS small Pennsylvania town for a relative's funeral and there were no hotels or motels in the town. NONE. There were two Bed and Breakfasts, and both were run by a fundamentalist Christian family who didn't allow alcohol on the premises.

We were close enough to walk to the church for the funeral, and on the way back I saw a house with a neon sign in the window. A bar! Right in the middle of a neighborhood!

I got farked up that weekend. Bonus: it was Pennsylvania, so Coors Light and Bud Light was 75 cents a bottle in 2005. I like the harder liquor, but I was buying rounds for everyone in the bar because I could do it for less than $15. You only have to do that for one night before you become the most popular person there the next night.

For three glorious nights I got myself good and shiatfaced, then woke up all alcohol smelly and ate breakfast with the teetotalers. I adhered to their law and mine.

It was the first "local" I had ever been to. I went to another one in Columbus, Ohio a year later. I think they are an outstanding idea.

Cool story. bro.

Why not just allow bars?

robmilmel: Mormon church influences alcohol debate in Salt Lake City


In a just world, where the highest laws of our land actually meant something, it would be:
"Federal government executes former leaders of religious state."

lobootomy: DrunkArse: That is the number one reason someone drives drunk. They don't want to fetch their car the next day because of work, inconvenience, etc.

No kidding. My old bar tried to offer a "drive home service" for cheap - they would drive you and your car home - and the taxi laws prevented them from doing it.

You could hire two high school kids to sit in a bar and tag-team driving home drunks for less than what we spend on DUI prosecutions from patrons of the same bar.

People aren't interested in stopping drunk driving, they want to stop people from drinking. Cab companies enjoy a farking monopoly in most cities, and they don't want to waste a driver on a twofer.


It's disgusting. Both that the public process doesn't encourage better solutions for drunk driving, and worse still that the reason behind why they block those options seems mostly profit-driven.

I'm all for responsible drinking, but to ignore the fact that certain people will ignore or become inebriated to the point where they can't make a good decision is silly. We've dropped public safety and big-picture loss of life and property for municipal fines.

To clamp down on enforcement and encourage prosecution without care for the ramifications on both the living and the dead ranges somewhere between despotism and ghoulishness.

Ryker's Peninsula: FTA: "When he got a little rowdy, they threw him out, and he got in his car and drove around, and he hit our daughter. Three times the legal limit."

Their daughter was 54 years old?

He's apparently an idiot from the rest of the article. Don't expect coherent sentences from him.

Mormans constantly recite that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true church. Even though its founder Joseph Smith, Jr. was a convicted conman and used much of the same style of scam to found the church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
Early years (1805-1827)........ His family were also Christian mystics: like many people of that era,[11] both his parents and his maternal grandfather had visions or dreams that they believed communicated messages from God.[12] Smith said that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven[13] and, according to later accounts, that all churches were false....
...The Smith family supplemented its meager farm income by treasure-digging,[17] likewise relatively common in contemporary New England.[18] Joseph claimed an ability to use seer stones for locating lost items and buried treasure.[19] To do so, Smith would put a stone in a white stovepipe hat and would then see the required information in reflections given off by the stone.[20] A treasure-seer was expected to maintain his power by being sexually pure........

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/162-4.htm.........
"Money-digging" (also sometimes called "glass-looking") was a con or a fraud that was practiced in the Northeastern US at that time. The con man would have a "magic stone" which he would place in his hat, and then pull his hat over his face, excluding all light. The stone would then supposedly shine and the money-digger could locate hidden treasure. People would pay the money-digger to tell them where to dig, but there was another part of the scam. When you got "close" to the treasure, the money-digger would usually tell you that the treasure had moved. The whole thing was like looking into a crystal ball or doing palm-reading.

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Joseph_Smith_and_money-digging.......For years the Mormon organization denied accounts of Joseph Smith's money-digging. It portrayed these as anti-Mormon lies. Few historians today, however, LDS or not, deny that Joseph Smith and his family were deeply involved in folk magic. ...
...During this time two significant things happened. First, Smith met his future wife, Emma Hale, and in later interviews her father explained how he didn't like Joseph Smith when he first met him because Smith was a money-digger, and Mr. Hale didn't want any criminals marrying his daughter! Perhaps even more damaging, however, was the fact that Smith was tried and convicted in court in March 1826 for 'glass-looking'. The charge had been brought up by Stowell's nephew, who saw through the con that his uncle didn't. Mormon historians now acknowledge that this trial happened and that Smith was convicted on this charge."......

I am a drunk. (AKA Farker)

I live (most of the time) in New Orleans. New Orleans is a drunk city. If you live in the city proper, you are within walking distance of the streetcar. It is a magical moving room that, for a mere dollar and one quarter, will drive you along two rails to the local bars, or within walking distance of yet more bars.

If the city that couldn't even properly evacuate in advance of an Armageddon-unleashing hurricane can figure this shiat out, than maybe, just maybe, your local municipality can as well.

pdkl95: More evidence that the neo-prohibitionists at MADD are more interested in throwing their morality around than actually reducing the number of drunk-drivers on the road. But why let objective results get in the way of a good moral crusade. *sigh*

DrunkArse: * Insurance allowances that would permit cab drivers to drive your car home for you (they do this in Canada)

That is a brilliant idea. You could even pitch it as a "job creation" thing, which this crap economy needs.

Did you not look up about 10 posts, where I created this idea? You'll be hearing from my barrister. Either him, or my attorney. Or perhaps my legal counsel. Either way, it'll be a guy in a suit, so watch out.

DrunkArse: I nearly fell off my barstool when I saw it in action. Vancouver BC. Cab shows up, two drivers. One drives you home, the other drives your car... Pure genius.

They have this here in okinawa too. It's a good thing too, because the the local legal limit to drive is .03, or about 1 beer. Also, they can charge people who are passengers in the vehicle as well.

lobootomy: Jensaarai: If the city that couldn't even properly evacuate in advance of an Armageddon-unleashing hurricane can figure this shiat out, than maybe, just maybe, your local municipality can as well.

The problem is that most of the country doesn't live within a city - they live in a suburb. With no public transportation.

I live in a rural area, and when the one actual bar tried to offer a "drive home service" - it was killed because the taxi laws prevented it. However, no taxis service anywhere after 9pm because the one lone local taxi company closes at that time.

Said taxi company is not big enough to affect our county laws, but the taxi companies in the much bigger city to the north do. So every time someone proposes altering the law, a donation is made and the law isn't passed.

You shouldn't have to live in a city in order to have a good night out drinking. There should be options. They don't even have to be cheap, but they should exist.

Don't they have fields or vacant lots or something in the suburbs? I've never been more than three blocks from my urban squat apartment so I wouldn't know. But I hear you can go to those places and cops generally won't mess with you.

lobootomy: Jensaarai: If the city that couldn't even properly evacuate in advance of an Armageddon-unleashing hurricane can figure this shiat out, than maybe, just maybe, your local municipality can as well.

The problem is that most of the country doesn't live within a city - they live in a suburb. With no public transportation.

I live in a rural area, and when the one actual bar tried to offer a "drive home service" - it was killed because the taxi laws prevented it. However, no taxis service anywhere after 9pm because the one lone local taxi company closes at that time.

Said taxi company is not big enough to affect our county laws, but the taxi companies in the much bigger city to the north do. So every time someone proposes altering the law, a donation is made and the law isn't passed.

You shouldn't have to live in a city in order to have a good night out drinking. There should be options. They don't even have to be cheap, but they should exist.

You are correct.

At this point, rural public transportation options, reform of the laws preventing them in some circumstances, and extension of public transportation to suburbs/hours that go late into the night would do a hell of a lot to cut into the drunk driving problem. Even my example of NOLA could do much better.

Unfortunately, all the energy surrounding the problem is being sucked up by MADD, religious organizations, and other groups that would rather punish, punish, punish, or attack alcohol consumption altogether. And groups like you pointed out also stand in the way out of pure greed/stupidity.

The days I don't spend in NOLA, I spend in New Mexico. And while at first I disliked the expensive Rail Runner program, I've since become curious to see if it helped cut down on drunk driving incidences on the highways around Albuquerque. (Or within the city, the vastly improved bussing system.)

I just get so frustrated. Just like this story shows -- whenever somebody attempts to implement a common sense solution that actually helps solve a problem, a bunch of rabid moralistic morons crop up to prevent it.

I really cannot wait for Georgia's teetotaler governor to go away. We only have a few more years to deal with him. State legislators keep trying to pass laws making it legal for stores to sell alcohol on Sundays, but the governor always shoots them down. I mean Utah of all places can buy alcohol on Sundays and we can't.