Talk:Mothers Against Drunk Driving

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver

Should[edit]

Should we have "mission creep" as a category or an article? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Regarding categories, this is currently classed as moonbattery. Shouldn't it be wingnuttery? This is fairly conservative movement, appealing to family values & suchlike. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 06:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Tbh, I think this article doesn't fall under moonbattery or wingnuttery at all. I don't know the Mother Against Drunk Driving, but from what I read here they don't seem that looney. In fact, I think most of their positions ain't half bad, with exception of making it illegal for people under 21 to drink wine at home. The fact is, most drunk drivers are people between 16-25, so it's pretty obvious why this is the targetted group. And lines like What any of the above have to do with drunk driving, of course, is anyone's guess., makes this article painfully childish. Yes, they are so looney that they think sobriety checkpoints have anything to do with drunk drivers, lololol!!
You don't have to agree with them, but childishly ridiculing them without any good points... well that that just makes you a conservapedian.. --GTac 16:23, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Well, their mission creep has made their name non-descriptive. You are right on the checkpoint issue, though, inasmuch as it is or might be an effective way to prevent (or at least punish) drunk driving. However, checkpoints have always been a bit slippery from a general civil rights perspective. That part, at least, does not make sense with the "what any of the above" part following it. Perhaps checkpoints should be a separate section? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Off topic[edit]

Wait, people can drive cars at 16 y.o., but can't drink until they turn 21?!? Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 06:31, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Really, what does that 21 yo legal age mean? I guess they can drink at home, but not buy alcohol in shops? What about pubs and restaurants? --Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 06:32, 21 November 2008 (EST)
It's America, what else do you expect but that kind of wierdness :P In the UK, the discrepency is only 1 year, rather than 5 though. ArmondikoVsshole 07:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Note that the legal drinking age in the UK is five. Yes, FIVE, at home in the presence of a responsible adult (usually parent). It's only the legal purchasing age that's 18. Jgharston (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Ed, no, no, no, and no. Here in 'merka 'tis a crime to serve a glass of wine to your 20 year old son/daughter at your own table in your own home. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:02, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Perhaps it's just how I was raised, but personally I greatly believe in learning how to drink before learning how to drive. Drinking age on 16 and driving on 18-21. I've been in the US for a few months and it scares the shit out of me to see what kind of irresonsible kids are legally on the road. But then again, a lot of towns are build in a way which pretty much requires you to have a car, otherwise you're pretty stuck --GTac 21:28, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:04, 17 February 2009 (EST)

rename?[edit]

Not that's I'm suggesting renaming the article. But the group needs to be renamed to MAUD. That makes me laugh. Quaru (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit extreme[edit]

Jeez! Is not supporting underage drinking really THAT ridiculous??? I mean, seriously, am I missing something, or is this article serious?--24.13.239.17 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you have against "underage" drinking? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing, I guess. But this article sorta ignores the fact that before Candy Lightner left in '85, MADD made good progress and certainly saved a few lives. I think the group's overall influence has still been positive. This article sounds like their original stance on drunk driving was too extreme. --24.13.239.17 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, I should re-read it. MADD's original mission was certainly honorable and good, and led to many reforms of driving statutes and attitudes. Working against teenagers drinking in their own home supervised by their parents? Making such parents criminals? Fucking lame prohibitionism. 06:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, well I went ahead and changed it a bit. I'm not sure if I was supposed to, but this page is a bit to childish and one-sided for me. We're better than a progressive CP, right?24.13.239.17 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
OK by me. Documents their good works then their slide into fuckwittery - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Missionality[edit]

The article discusses their political views, which are relatively mainstream. (What mainstream politician has argued against MADD's positions? Alcohol is presumed evil for youth.) It doesn't explain why it's pseudoscience, and the link to authoritarianism exists but is tenuous and this feels like a watering-down of the definition. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. If you look at their positions, they are hardline and, arguably, ageist. I think we could go into more detail about how states have used these methods to oppress immigrants or how ignition interlocks are ineffective.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Both of those suggest that a broader article on drinking and driving is in order, and more missional, too. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Owlman is correct. Their position has changed such that they're no longer really against drunk driving, but against drinking. 17:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
MADD is one of the greatest evils to befall the US in my lifetime. The worst thing they did, IMO, is to deny people accused of drunk driving of due process by imposing bureaucratic penalties including the loss of a driver's license by merely being arrested for the offense. Given the subjective nature of the offense (I've read hundreds of police reports that speak of 'slurred speech' and 'bloodshot eyes') this of course invites abuse. In better times, before MADD, police officers had the option of taking tipsy drivers home rather than to jail. That common sense solution is now illegal in every state. The drinking age of 21 is tyranny that no gentleman would enforce. Some people invest the random deadline with a great deal of inappropriate moral weight. MADD is another example of a evil clean living movement. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Um, perhaps a little overstated there, but your general point is valid. I accept that drunk driving is a substantial problem, but redefining "drunk" to mean "drank one beer" (as we learned in school, that'll put the avg person at .1 abv, above the .08 limit) is ridiculous. And the wildly inappropriate penalties for being caught having had a beer behind the wheel are inappropriate. Taking away due process for those accused is just facepalmingly crazy, potentially akin to the historical abuse of vagrancy charges by police. Peyre (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Owlman & the other. I think the fact that their views are "mainstream" makes this article even more important. Tori (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)