The UDADD Solution

Drunk driving laws need to be written with drunks in mind. Lawmakers and political activists need to acknowledge that drinking is a right.

Okay, so the guy had too much to drink. So what? Simply overimbibing doesn’t put you in danger the way driving drunk and speeding through a red light does. Nobody has ever been hit by a car that was not moving.

It’s closing time. Already the government has done something wrong by forcing the tavern to close and kick everybody out. It’s freezing cold and dark, there are no sidewalks and a taxi is prohibitively expensive.

Ignition interlocks need to be modified to allow the car to start but not move, same as with a remote starter. Now the car can warm up. But how will the drunk get home? By opening the driver side door and climbing in, that’s how. Warm, dry, parked, the place is “home.”

Laws need to be modified so that starting the car and climbing in, if the car is equipped with an ignition interlock, is not DWI. The drunks shouldn’t have to worry that the police will pull into the parking lot and arrest the drunk for idling while intoxicated.

Three hours later, the drunk might feel okay to drive, but the ignition interlock says otherwise and prevents driving the car. That’s just as innocent as using a speedometer to help avoid driving too fast.

MADD will howl furiously at this idea because it removes their excuse for oppressing innocent, responsible drinkers who are under 21. MADD is even pushing bills to allow convicted drunk drivers to shorten their license suspension times and start driving legally if they get an ignition interlock installed. (Keep in mind that convicted drunk drivers are free to buy and drink all the booze they want, if they’re 21 or older, but innocent citizens under 21 can be hauled off to jail for one can of beer.) They definitely do not want Mr. and Mrs. Twenty to be able to shorten their second-class citizenship time and start drinking legally if they get an ignition interlock installed on their cars. Nay, this life-saving technology is for the benefit of convicted criminals only. Nazis hate Jews and MADD hates responsible drinkers under 21. That’s what they do. While an Ohio man racked up eleven DWI convictions, MADD pushed for alcohol sting operations, keg registration laws, counterfeit-resistant ID's and harsher punishments for underage drinking, to oppress the innocent citizens who responsibly exercise their right to drink. On 2 March 2006, the guy was driving drunk, driving left of center, speeding, driving under suspension and leading police on a chase, (but at least he wasn’t drinking under age. He was 47, please understand.) He crashed head-on into a car with three Hiram College students who were leaving for Spring Break, (but at least he wasn’t buying beer for them,) killing Andrew Hopkins, 18, and Grace Chamberlain, 18, and critically injuring Evan Dasilva, 19. MADD does not care about drunk driving.

MADD will oppose this solution because it will reduce the profits of the auto companies that are among its corporate sponsors. The auto industry profits from drunk driving because drunk drivers smash up cars and the owners buy new ones. This solution prevents that wreckage, cutting into the auto companies’ profits. But MADD is a 501(c)(3) organization and isn’t supposed to be lobbying for changes in legislation anyway.