MADD should change its name to BOCB: "Bunch of Crazy Bitches"

MADD Canada is going off the deep end yet again: this time using the results of a survey to propose massive impositions on our fredoms:

The poll, commissioned by Transport Canada and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, found that there was virtual unanimity among those surveyed that impaired driving is the number one road safety concern, far ahead of running red lights, road rage and speeding.

The public opinion poll, to be released today, also found broad acceptance of get-tough measures. For example:

66 per cent think police should be able to conduct random breath tests;

83 per cent believe the vehicles of convicted impaired drivers should be fitted with ignition interlocks, devices that ensure a vehicle cannot be started without a breath test;

56 per cent of those polled said that all new cars should be equipped with ignition interlock devices;

89 per cent of respondents say repeat impaired drivers should have their vehicles confiscated;

89 per cent say the acceptable blood-alcohol level for underage drinkers should be zero.
Over half of Canadians are willing to have breathalyzers placed in their own vehicles? Over half??
The results of focus groups conducted across Canada found similarly hard-line views, including calls to lower the Criminal Code limit for blood-alcohol concentration to 0.05 (50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood) from the current level of 0.08.
Why? What is really so wrong about 4 Bloody Marys over two hours? Is it any worse than any other number of far more common driving dangers, such as being tired or distracted by kids?
Similarly, Mr. Murie noted that the technology exists to equip all cars with ignition interlock devices at a minimal cost, and that the poll showed strong support for such an approach. He said that, like seat belts and infant car seats, the devices will likely become standard in the years to come.

The MADD CEO said that the oft-cited concern that cracking down on impaired driving will violate civil liberties is unfounded.
1) How funny is it that an organization called "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" has a male CEO?
2) Exactly how is it unfounded there buddy boy? Random checks? Devices in our cars to check our alcohol content? Care to explain this one? Or do you want to just stand by your story with your fingers in your ears. [again, why not call the organization "Mothers against Impaired Driving?" Its acronym would be far more accurate. -ed]

Bonus "alcohol, elixir of life" story: BC plans to tax alcohol based on its liquor content:
Almost half of a group of male University of Victoria students who took a taste test of their favourite frothy friend couldn't tell the difference between low- and regular-strength beer, a study released yesterday shows.

The findings by the UVic-based Centre for Addictions Research B.C. will be used by researchers and health experts next week to appeal to the B.C. government to tie liquor prices to alcohol content.

The idea behind the sin-tax policy is that if low-alcohol beverages were cheaper and high-alcohol drinks more expensive -- thus resulting in a neutral impact on provincial coffers -- consumer tastes would change toward less potent beverages.
How often do we have to say this to get the message across: we do not drink beer because we like the taste of decaying barley in our mouths. We drink beer because it gets us drunk. Some beers do have delicious and easy-drinking tastes: Guinness and Sleeman Honey Brown come to mind. Alley Kat Brewery out of Edmonton has a really good citrus-ey drink called "Full Moon Ale" as well. Regardless, take the alcohol out, and keep the taste 100% identical, I wouldn't touch the stuff again in my life.
Although there was a preference for the taste of the 5.3 per cent beer, 45 per cent couldn't tell the difference between the two, and 66 per cent were as happy drinking the low-alcohol beer as the high-alcohol beer. About half reported no differences in their perceived intoxication.
of course they wouldn't notice an intoxication difference: they each had two beers stretched over two sessions!


K. Restoule said...

You can't go against the MADD people. You'll be labeled something really bad.

Awhile back PETA did a campaign telling University Students to drink beer instead of Milk so the sake of the cows. Guess what happened when MADD heard about this.