Archive for October, 2009
Friday, October 30th, 2009
There’s a Latin axiom that says abusus non tollit usum—meaning that abuse does not preclude legitimate use. The folks at the Marin Institute should write it on the blackboard 50 times.
The Marin Institute put out a press release yesterday calling for more states to adopt punitive taxes on what its deems “Big Alcohol” to help pay for the costs alcohol abuse. The truth is the folks at Marin would jump for joy if alcohol were taxed out of existence.
However, alcohol companies sell a perfectly legitimate product that is safely used around the world every day. So why should companies be held responsible through taxes for the irresponsible decisions of a few individuals?
The notion of personal responsibility quickly goes out the door once government tax policy is based on the blame game. What if Ford and Toyota were taxed to pay for car accidents caused by speeders?
The punishment needs to fit the crime—or lack thereof. In addition to all of the other problems with increasing drink taxes, making beer, wine, and spirits producers pay for something they have no direct control over just doesn’t make sense. But coming from a notoriously anti-alcohol organization, that’s par for the course.
Posted in Drink Taxes, Neoprohibition | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 27th, 2009
Today, MADD Delaware’s Executive Director Nancy Raynor posted a letter on her website asking the community for donations to keep the Delaware office open (which is slated to close at the end of the week due to lagging donations).
This is the same Nancy Raynor who said that President Obama’s one-drink-per-person beer summit could be a bad influence on kids. We found her comments to be indicative of an anti-alcohol attitude that has become pervasive in MADD’s messaging. After we called her on it, Ms. Raynor and MADD National tried to backtrack and deny her comments.
Remember that MADD was created to aid the victims of drunk driving, not to drive an anti-alcohol agenda. Even MADD’s co-founder Candy Lightner calls the “new” MADD a “neoprohibitionist” organization. The apple has fallen far from the tree.
If the residents of Delaware generously decide to open their wallets to keep MADD Delaware’s office open, we hope that they’ll do so with one caveat: MADD Delaware must get back to basics and focus on victim services.
Posted in Driving America MADD | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 27th, 2009
MADD has announced that due to a decrease in funding this year, it was forced to “reduce staff positions by 13.8%, which included 23 positions in 11 states.” Some good news coming out of this is that MADD is keeping most of its victim services staff on board and will keep its victim hotline open.
We’re surprised, but happy to hear that when push comes to shove, MADD is choosing to help victims, instead of pushing its aggressive (and misguided) legislative agenda.
Posted in Driving America MADD | No Comments »
Monday, October 26th, 2009
Today, the Denver Post ran a story about alcohol detection technologies and quoted Sue Ferguson, Program Director for the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety:
Some foresee a time when drunken- driving deaths will be rare because every car will come with an interlock device.
” ‘Star Wars’ meets drunk driving,” Susan Ferguson labeled it at a traffic safety summit in New Mexico.
The program she manages, Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, has awarded grants to develop advanced technologies that could detect intoxication without requiring a driver to breathe into a tube…
“I think within 10 years, we could have technologies that would be vehicle-ready.”
Just more proof that your next car could come equipped with an interlock.
Posted in Interlock Facts | 1 Comment »
Monday, October 26th, 2009
On Sunday, California’s Daily Breeze newspaper ran a letter to the editor from Gary Meyer challenging ABI’s claim that sobriety checkpoints waste time and money:
The same Breeze edition also contained an article about a sobriety checkpoint in Hawthorne in which 234 vehicles were impounded as a result of unlicensed drivers and unregistered and uninsured cars. 234 cars!
…These checkpoints obviously remove more hazards from the roadway than the drunken driver alone.
We hear Mr. Meyer’s argument a lot and it’s not only wrongheaded, but unconstitutional.
In 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the severity of the drunk driving problem (at that time) outweighed concerns of intrusion to motorists at sobriety checkpoints.
No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States’ interest in eradicating it…
Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale — the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints — is slight.
- Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, No. 88-1897
It is well-recognized that the purpose of checkpoints is to observe driver sobriety, not impound vehicles of unlicensed motorists or write tickets for broken taillights.
In fact, in that very opinion, Chief Justice Rhenquist noted that:
In Delaware v. Prouse, supra, we disapproved random stops made by Delaware Highway Patrol officers in an effort to apprehend unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles. We observed that no empirical evidence indicated that such stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety.
Posted in Sobriety Checkpoints | 2 Comments »
Sunday, October 25th, 2009
Smart Start, Inc., one of the nation’s biggest interlock companies, is hungry for business. So hungry that one of its franchisers may have violated Louisiana’s ethics laws.
The Baton Rouge Advocate reports that:
Lafourche Parish Sheriff Craig Webre defended himself Friday against conflict of interest allegations involving a private business venture.
The Louisiana Board of Ethics claims that he may have run afoul of ethics laws by channeling business to an ignition interlock device company in which he once had a controlling interest.
Webre owns Smart Start Louisiana, an interlock installation and monitoring company. So, it stands to reason that he has a financial interest in seeing drunk driving offenders – all of whom are required to install interlocks in Louisiana – patronize his particular interlock company. He’s accused of using his powerful position to drum up business for his company.
On the legislative level, both the national and state offices of Smart Start have been heavily involved in the campaign for more widespread use of interlocks. It’s no surprise that a company that manufacturers, installs, services, monitors, and reports on interlocks would be pushing for increased use of its product. Check out the Smart Start Kansas blog which encourages the passage of harsher interlock laws while simultaneously offering discounts on interlocks for potential new customers.
Learn more about Smart Start and the role that interlock companies play in passing laws to increase the use of interlocks on our website.
Posted in Interlock Facts | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009
According to News Channel 8 in Maryland, “The last time the state of Maryland raised its tax on liquor, Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the White House.” And according to us, that’s a good thing.
Increasing drink taxes is a terrible idea for a whole host of reasons, including:
Excise taxes are known to be the most regressive form of taxation, impacting those with lower incomes far more than those who are wealthy.
Alcohol is already overtaxed. For example, 52% of the purchase price of a typical bottle of spirits in Maryland goes to pay taxes and fees.
Alcohol taxes are job killers
Not to mention that raising taxes while Marylanders struggle through dismal economic conditions is a bad move.
Yet, a handful of Maryland lawmakers insist on pushing an alcohol tax increase. We hope that the full legislature will realize that increasing drink taxes is the wrong move.
Posted in Drink Taxes | No Comments »
Monday, October 19th, 2009
Good news for the Sunday brunch crowd in Ohio: now you can get a mimosa or Bloody Mary with your omelets and French toast. A new law goes into effect this Sunday that allows restaurants to serve alcohol on Sunday mornings starting at 11am. Previously, restaurants were dry until 1pm.
Yet, for some reason, MADD is questioning the new law.
If MADD really isn’t anti-alcohol, as it claims, why would the group oppose a law allowing adults to enjoy a drink with brunch?
Someone should tell MADD that having a drink at a restaurant on Sunday morning has nothing to do with drunk driving.
Posted in Driving America MADD | 1 Comment »
|
