Email responses to the MADD column after the break.

I’d estimate they ran about 85% positive.

The first one is particularly apt. Comes from a cop.

Don’t usually do it, but I had to write to tell you how much I agree with you on this subject. I disagreed with that Supreme Court decision even before I became a police officer. Now I find myself forced to work those worthless roadblock details just to keep my job. I have yet to see someone actually inebriated, to the point of being dangerous, stopped at one of these details. The real stupid part is, we see the people who are probably drunk stopping, turning around, and leaving the scene before they reach the road block, and we are not allowed to give chase.

These details have become nothing but money raising tools for the state, and they should have been ruled unconstitutional! The Supreme Court failed miserably here! Police officers are much more effective at fnding problem drivers than these 1939 German type let-me-see-your-papers-please roadblocks that should have never been allowed in this country. For that matter, so is the public. With the wonderful invention of cell phones, if you swerve your vehicle while tuning the radio or yelling at the kids in the back seat, chances are that it’ll be instantly reportedk, and you’ll find one of us your rear view mirror. I have yet to go an entire shift without hearing a reckless, or possible DUI driver call. I’ve gotten more DUIs that way than any other. You’re correctB/A content also. If it’s reallly a DUI, and not a case of road rage, the B/A content is always over .15.

MADD has always been 100 percent anti alcohol. The drinking and driving adds they ran in the 90s aggravated me to the point that when they called me for a donation, I would agree, just so I could cost them postage. They have done some good of course. There’s not a person on the planet that doesn’t know you shouldn’t drink and drive. That’s good, sound advice, but as far as I’m concerned, they are hostile to a document that I’ve sworn to defend. They’ve weakened the US Constitution and our freedom, so I see them as a domestic enemy to what I hold dear.

Don’t even get me started on the seatbelt details.

~

I’ve been following your comments with regard to MADD for some time. MADD et al. greatly contribute to my lack of trust in government. I’m not nearly as bad as some, but there is definitely a bit of a libertarian bias to my thinking. That’s somewhat surprising since I can claim to be an active Democrat. OK, Maryland isn’t a typical state. But I still consider people like Barbara Mikulski and Steny Hoyer solid allies on a number of important issues.

My interest in MADD’s crusade went from minor to quite significant in 1985 when I was charged with drunk driving in NJ. The case was tossed out with the judge observing that “the State’s own evidence requires a presumption of innocence.” Yes, the events surrounding my arrest were that bad.

Matters didn’t improve when, a month after, one Richard Zylman of Rutgers published an opinion piece in the Trenton Times claiming that the real problems were two kinds of drivers. One group was violent, antisocial and criminal. The other was composed of people who had recently suffered some sort of trauma in their lives. He claimed the crusade wouldn’t save lives. The mathematician in me (physics major, math minor in college) looked at MADD’s statistics. At the time they stated 31 million drunk drivers caused 20,000 fatalities per year. Figuring 1.7 fatalities per fatal accident, a little bit of arithmetic indicated the chances of a drunk driver being involved in a fatal accident in a given year was 1 in 2500. That tended to make me think Zylman was clearly on to something. Further confirming that idea were some numbers released by the New Jersey State Police about a year later. They trumpeted the fact that the crusade was working. Drunk driving fatalities had dropped from about 450/year to somewhat over 200/year in about four years. What got my attention, though, was that total fatalities, about 900/year, hadn’t changed at all.

Too much government supported research on topics of social/political/cultural controversy is too suspect to be accepted without question. Given the fact that auto fatality rates have been dropping since the 20s, how uch of the past 25 years drop is really due to the war on drunk driving and how much is due to an ongoing drop that
would have happened anyway?

As I said when I began this e-mail, I’m not exactly trusting of government, especially when it is used to impose the desires of one group on all of society.

Thank you for your writings on this topic. I hope more and more people listen.

~

I find this article to be an extremely powerful reason to stop supporting MADD, in that, this article makes the case of a well intended group that has morphed in to a group of anti-american socialist. MADD has taken the same road the ACLU took and from what I have read here, it has become more of a threat to freedom than my wallet can tolerate.

I have made the decision to pull my support of this orginazitaion and would like to extend my sincer thanks for the information to make that decision.

~

How many deaths from drinking impaired drivers does Mr. Balko think is acceptable? Is he willing to go to their funerals and explain to the family that driving with alcohol in ones system is really OK? How will he feel when a drunk kills someone he cares about?

~

Perhaps the police should go after illegal drug users who drive. Here in Australia the police are ticketing them over alcohol drinkers 5 to 1.

~

I am not a drinker (I have a social drink only three or four times a year). A good friend of mine has a son that is in hes late 20’s, an honorably discharged and decorated Marine, and currently a federal agent (with a considerable amount of training). Recently, he was involved in a serious accident while leaving an auto race car track. While in the emergency room (prepped for surgery, wearing an oxygen mask, and and heavily sedated), he was asked by a deputy “did you drink any alcohol”. He said that he had “had a few beers during the races”. He was then asked to submit to a blood test for alcohol. He agreed to having the test (though he doesn’t remember any of it). My friend found out later that, even if he had been unable to respond, there is a thing called “implied consent” that permits them to take the test anyway. If he had responded “no”, then his license would have been automatically taken away for one year.

The young man spent a month in the hospital and is making a full recovery. However, he had failed the blood test, his license was revoked (even though he had not been charged or arrested), and he was in jeopardy of losing his job. After another month passed, the county attourney opted not to charge him because the drugs he was on could have adversely affected the alcohol test results. It took him almost two more weeks to get his license returned from the state.

Bottom line: He was never charged, much less convicted. What ever happened to “due process”?

~

Cheers for saying what nearly everybody is afraid to even think. I have been convicted of DUI, and I must say I deserved conviction, and the suspension of my license. However, laws are getting crazier by the year, and I’ve even heard policemen warn against drunk driving on the grounds that MADD is only going to make things worse. My friend recently did a month in county jail for his first DUI, something unthinkable as little as 5 years ago.

Causes like this are like a pendulum; once they accomplish what they set out to, their momentum carries them way past until hopefully they eventually come to a stop at the center. However, it is terrifying to think what MADD will pursue in the coming years. Part of our state delegate’s campaign platform this year is for tougher DUI laws, and Virginia is already the self-acknowledged “toughest” state on drunk driving in the union! Elected politicians will never do anything that an opponent might somehow construe as “not against” drunk driving, so conceivably MADD will continue to push through any statutes they like.

~

Your column reflecting the new MADD was excellent. This discussion is long past due. While drunk driving hysteria seemed to peak some time ago, its effects are still around us. I am a resident of California. Here DUI is: .08 for adults and zero tolerance for minors (down from .05 before). Automatic loss of a drivers’ license regardless of conviction, and the “offender” is compelled to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

I hope something comes of your effort to open a debate on this issue.

~

That was an excellent piece! I think we should start an organization called D.A.M.M. or Drunks against Mad Mothers!

In all seriousness, your article pointed out that MADD has gone way overboard in their efforts that started out on the right path.

As much as I wish your argument would gain traction…Good Luck! Arguing with the sacred MADD organization is not PC!

Thanks for your courage.

~

Dear Fox News,

I am a fan of Fox News and appreciate the balanced approach that your station normally takes on issues. However, I would like to take exception to a story titled “When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition”. This article indicated that checkpoints are not effective and cited one in North Carolina that resulted in three DWI arrests and 45 other violations, saying that the three was actually a high number for the checkpoints.

Well, this is inaccurate. North Carolina has many checkpoints that can be cited with 15 or more DWI arrests. There are always other citations issued and other arrests issued for a variety of violations, including drug violations, weapons violations, fugitives apprehended, etc. Several murder suspects have been arrested in North Carolina at checkpoints. Criminals and terrorists move on our streets and highways. Timothy McVeigh was apprehended as a result of a traffic stop. The 911 terrorists had been stopped as a result of a traffic stop as well. Should we
turn our back to violations that occur at DWI checkpoints, simply because they are not impaired driving violations?

No!

The primary reason for the checkpoints is impaired driving, but the beauty of the checkpoints is their deterrence effect and the ability to snare additional other violators. Impaired driving checkpoints are one of the most effective means to the problem, while allowing law enforcement agencies the ability to detect other criminal activity. With the fuel situation, checkpoints also allow officers to interact with the motoring public without wasting fuel.

In the future when reporting on an issue such as this that involves a state and cites a specific issue, I think it would be a good practice to talk to someone at the state level to see if this is a good example, or just one incidence that was reported in a local news paper.

~

Nice piece guys.

Thanks.

Time was when yours truly was an auto writer. As such, I got heavily infected with auto safety. Very early.

MADD appears.

I joined.

Even took their brochures to several lunches and put them on chairs.

THEN.

Then Gov. Engler had one of his multiple, repeated efforts to curtail the tort lawyer insanity.

MADD sent a mailing, to all Michigan members as far as I could tell, attacking Engler’s ballot initiative.

Talk about whoring.

Thanks for your good work.

~

I totally agree with you Radley. Madd has put more people in jail and/or made criminals out of ordinary people than was ever justified. They even show up in courts to make sure the judges make even the social drinkers feel like the lowest scum. They are worse than the anti smoking righteous folks who; if they could, would like to see smokers not only treated like second class citizens as they are now but in a cell where they can contemplate all the second hand deaths they have caused over the years. Either of the above are almost as bad as our congressmen and presidents that decide jailing casual drug users is the right thing to do resulting in prison overcrowding. I only wonder how many have become criminals for real after a stint in the shithouses of our nation.

~

Thanks for your 10/05 piece on MADD. It is objective and factual.

As a trade association representing the Hospitality industry we think you hit the nail on the head.

MADD’s agenda postures those of us who sell beverage alcohol as criminals and that could not be further from the truth.

Again thanks for your work.

~

MADD has not just turned into a neo-prohibition group, but they have also in some arenas become anti-male, anti-father, and anti-anything that has to do with advertising alcohol during sporting events etc… They have some leaders that are very strong with NOW, and other political groups that blatantly use the MADD organization to argue against men in custody battles over children whether there is any proof of a drinking problem or not. They have determined that the male advertisers in this country that sponsor sporting events such as football, NASCAR, baseball, boxing etc… have no business advertising alcohol at these events and that children should not be exposed to these events as long as advertising promotes alcohol or anything else that these women deem dangerous to society. I don’t know about you, but I am sure millions of men sleep better at night knowing that unknown women all over the country know what is better for us and our children then we do.

~

Here in California MADD now stands for Mothers against Drinking and Driving. They dropped the “Drunk,” and as you wrote are against ANY drinking and driving. Also soon after the change in name one of the original founders of the group was arrested for DUI.

I am not sure if other chapters of MADD have made this change in the meaning of the acronym.

~

I want to thank you for a very well written article. My perception of the past 5 to 10 years has been that MADD is on overkill in its anti-DUI efforts and has passed the threshhold of common sense.

I was pleased to find that you located data supporting what I intuitively have believed for some time. With the rising need for security, it is obvous to me that we need to seriously examine how we utilize our police forces and what their priorities should be.

~

Bravo! Thanks for telling it like it is. It’s hard to criticize a group identified as grieving mothers, but they are completely out of control. And no I’ve never had any kind of DWI citation; I just worry about my civil liberties.

~

Even more, in most cases, those charged with a DUI never receive their Miranda rights, nor are required to. Murder suspects get at least that much respect!!!

~

I always thought that somewhere along the way, MADD had gone from a noble organization with a noble cause to becoming yet ANOTHER borderline fanatical, agenda driven organization (much like PETA and NOW) that had lost it’s way somewhat. After reading this piece I now realize that I was mistaken in my assumptions. MADD is NOT a borderline fanatical, agenda driven organization. They have clearly crossed the line and are a full blown fanatical organization. What is it with these groups that fail to be satisfied with attaining their original goals? After reading this, I am quite sure that MADD’s ultimate agenda is to bring back prohibition. The Zero Tolerance stance they have taken and pushing for breathalyzers in every car should wake EVERYONE up to just how far over the line these folks have gone. I guess that the distance from samaritan with a good cause to fantatic with a rights depleting agenda isn’t too far.

~

Congratulations on you thoughtful and truthful article, “When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition”.

I think you have hit the nail on the head and lots of people understand your points that are factual and clear thinking. It seems like everybody in America has one DUI that is 5 - 15 years old for a blood level of 0.1 to 0.12. However, most severe injuries involve levels much higher and involve repeat offenders. While I am sure that eventually these Islamic-type first offender laws will change, you are unfortunately before your time. I don’t think the critical mass of one time and first time offenders has quite occurred yet to crystalize for the counter political movement to hold MADD in check.

You are correct, but not PC, sir.

~

I agree with you. How to do we fight this “we are here to help” facade?

~

This is coming from someone who has no interest in alcohol, and disdain for many of the unspoken and/or largely ignored ills that alcohol abuse heaps upon our society (which affects everyone, whether on a close personal basis, or the few-degrees-of-separation between those ills and our insurance premiums, taxes, etc). That said, I must admit my bias and that I find little issue with some of the latest goals of the MADD organization. And I’m sure you’re smart enough to truly realize that the assumption “…the occasional drunk driver had all but been eradicated” is quite an exaggeration.

I do, however, agree that the concept of random sobriety checkpoints, set up to largely investigate those who may have given little or no indication of intoxication, seems to be a tremendous waste of time and effort (which translates into taxpayer dollars).

One perfectly logical and much-more efficient method would be for local police to pay more attention to nightclub / bar districts. For example, many major American cities have some sort of “night-life” area loaded with a high concentration of bars and bar/restaurants. Atlanta’s “Buckhead” and Baltimore’s “Fell’s Point” areas come to mind. Anybody with half a brain would know that law enforcement is FAR, FAR more likely to catch “drunks” getting behind the wheel if they watched folks stumble out of bars well past the average person’s bedtime than they are by randomly stopping cars on the nearest interstate.

Ah, but to do so might harm business in those areas, which in turn could reduce the stream of profits that government siphons parts of into the local, state, and federal tax coffers.

So I find it hard to place the blame on MADD at this point for local government’s choice of where to focus their efforts, and I’d question MADD’s authority on telling the police where to set up. Randomly stopping people on the interstate only takes money out of “our” pockets. Catching folks closer to the source takes money out of theirs.

~

I agree with your article 100%. My son got a DWI while in college, so we had to get a lawyer so that he could continue to go to class and hold down a part time job. The judge in the case granted a restricted license for one year, but the NC DMV revoked it although the law granting it stayed the same. MADD lobbyists were pressuring state senators and representatives to rescind these type licenses even though my son met the requirements to receive one. I know and he knew that he was wrong but the punishment did not fit the crime. (Incidentally, he was not stopped for reckless or erratic driving, but for a light bulb out on his license plate)

~

Excellent article. I’ve always found it amazing that, at least in Missouri, someone arrested for DWI faces two separate punishments, losing one’s license and then either going to jail or paying a big fine. Why an unconvicted person who did no damage to property or another being should lose the ability to earn a livelyhood (due to lack of transportation) is utterly beyond me. People who rob a liquor store only get punished once, yet anything that involves alcohol has two repercussions. Thanks for a great article pointing out the extremist sect within MADD.

~

Thanks for this excellent piece of work. I was a TV reporter in the early days of MADD and they were on a noble quest. The idea that MADD now wants to get into the middle of custody and family law that has nothing to do with driving drunk is absurd, but not unexpected as groups like this tend to follow the federal agency mode of mission creep.

The taxpayers should not subsidize their goals as they should not financially support the desires of P.E.T.A

~

What a great article. MADD has turned into a bureaucratic monster, why have we allowed them to turn social drinkers into criminals.

They claim they have saved 300,000 lives, how can they make such an outrageous claim? How many lives have they ruined? According the American Institute for Philanthropy they have a D rating for a charitable organization.

Now they are pushing for primary seat belt laws, more roadblocks, reducing the BAC to .05 in Canada, reducing the BAC to .05 for divorced parents with a DUI conviction as well as repeat offenders. Why punish them as a drunken driver if they aren’t legally drunk.

MADD has zero credibility. They are hypocrites, they expect 18 to 20 year olds to adhere to standards that did not apply when they were that age.

I am 42 years old and am shocked at the state of affairs in this country.

I would prefer my children to learn to drink responsibly at home, as opposed to, learning about alcohol when they are 21 years old away at college.

Thank you for the informative article, I hope you will continue to speak out against MADD. We should lower the drinking age to 18 and raise the BAC back to .10

~

Great to see someone who’s not afraid to tell the truth about MADD. Just to pile on: didja notice while MADD is pushing the breathalyzer ignition interlocks, the manufacturer is one of MADD’s sponsors? How did Rehnquist put it? “The threat to public health posed by drunk drivers was reason enough to set aside concerns about” conflicts of interest. Sure it is. Just like raising the legal drinking age through federal highway money extortion was reason enough to bend hell out of the tenth and 21st amendments.

MADD is neo-prohibitionist. Thanks for getting the word out.

~

If lowering the level to .08 doesn’t make sense then this doesn’t either:

“The report also calls for child endangerment DUI/DWI offenders to be held to a more stringent blood alcohol standard — ..05 percent instead of .08 percent — and for second offenses to be a felony.”

http://www.madd.org/news/0,1056,8918,00.html

~

I believe that everyone has the right to drink a beer or any type of alcohol for that matter. But I do not believe that under the from of criminal punishment a defendant should be treated worse than someone who has committed murder. People accused of drunk driving lose their rights the moment they step out of the vehicle. With the implied consent laws the accused basically has to do what the police officer asks of them. This to me is not right. A person has the right not to self incriminate. The implied consent laws are a form of self incrimination. Most people are better off refusing the road side tests and the breath test because at trial there is nothing more than non compliance. Which now leaves room for a plea bargain?

On top of all of this I think MADD need to get back to the basics of how to educate people about the risks of driving drunk. They have no business trying to write laws. A first time offender in most states faces a year in jail and a 5,000 dollar fine. I am sure that there are crack dealers that have been charged with less.

As far as the parental issues and a zero tolerance I say to MADD. Get out of Family matters.

MADD need to get back to basics or close up shop.

~

“By the mid-1990s, deaths from drunk driving began to level off, after 15 years of progress. The sensible conclusion to draw from this was that the occasional drunk driver had all but been eradicated.. MADD’s successes had boiled the problem down to a small group of hard-core alcoholics.”

Are you kidding me? “Sensible conclusion?” “A small group of hard-core alcoholics”? 16,694 people where killed in 1994 in drunk driving accidents – a fact you failed to mention in your whole article. That’s 17 times the number of troops killed in Iraq in the same time period. Put those two statistics in the first paragraph of your article and see if anyone thinks they square.

The rest of your article seems to be an opinion piece of how yet another advocacy group has outgrown its original purpose and is trying to find other ways to spend its money. Not in any way surprising as we see this time and time again from groups on the left but your assertion that drunk driving has somehow all but disappeared is just laughable.. Sloppy journalism my friend…very sloppy.

~

What poppycock!! Drinking causes accidents and death, not roadblocks, laws or cops giving citations for other offenses while stopping people to check alcohol. In fact, cheers for anything that will prompt police to finally do their job. There is no safe level of alcohol to consume before driving. People who drive should simply not drink. Sorry if this cuts into the profits of your friends who operate restaurants and bars.

~

I have maintained for years that MADD was going to do everything in it’s power to prohibit alcohol use of any kind. I guess that time is now, and my tax dollars are helping to fund this travesty. When the Supreme Court so callously ran roughshod over our constitutional rights because drugs and alcohol considerations trumped our basic rights, not too many people spoke up. Now we are accelerating down the slippery slope. The most recent instance was the incredible eminent domain decision. Wake up people!

~

I’ve had a problem with MADD for years. That puts me in an awkward position because no one wants to see drunk-driving fatalities. These people have become so consumed with their own sense of righteousness that they’ve become dangerous to this country and its constitution. What can little- old- me do to restore some sanity in their relationship to government?

~

You are 100% correct. By lowering the BAC to .08 the alcohol related accident will go up because the limit went down. What the numbers don’t tell you is maybe the accident would have happen anyway. Why is it when there is alcohol on your breath it’s the cause of the accident? That’s just not true. We all see people that are sober that can’t operate a motor vehicle. The Police should be applying the same punishment to them.

Thanks for bring this topic up. People are afraid to address this issue because we’ve all been guilty at on time or another.

~

I really enjoyed your article laying MADD bare as an organization that has lost its purpose and in the absence of that purpose has sought to control the actions of others through their lobbying power.

Keep up the good work. And for the record I am someone who doesn’t even drink but respects the rights of those who do as long as it is with the reasonable responsibility

~

I agree 100% , thanks for seeing something that has gone overboard. Hardcore drinkers know the system and the regular guy doesn’t. So who are they really penalizing?

~

I’m not one to respond to articles on the internet, but I found your argument on the changes with the MADD organization to be well written and thought provoking. It really brings to mind Benjamin Franklin’s quote “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.”

~

All I want to say is,”Thank God (oops, can I say that?) somebody has the courage to finally say what you have said. In the current social and political climate it is almost suicide to come out against any social, environmental, etc. group in this country. Now, while I also have no problem with MADD’s original intent; to reduce the number of impaired drivers on the road and therefore the number of fatalities, it appalls me that MADD has been allowed to become what it has become. Again, thank you for saying that which is not politically correct and not being apologetic about it. Keep up the good work, people need to be informed.

~

Thank you, for having the courage to point out that “the emperor has no clothes.” Anyone opposing MADD has been ostracized and accused of harboring criminals. Like many organizations, they have taken their original purpose and carried it too far, since the last thing any outfit wants to do is declare victory and dissolve. (Remember when the March of Dimes was against only polio? Now that polio is no longer a problem, they had to find a bigger windmill to tilt against– birth defects. Apparently they figured out that a cause with only one enemy would be too easily achieved.) By enlarging the criminal class, MADD should be in business forever!

When MADD was first formed, my wife and I were contributors, but we sensed the same problem you have expressed so well, and stopped contributing years ago, purposely, not out of neglect.

~

I agree with many of your comments in this article. I do, however, agree with MADD on trying to revoke the licenses and/or vehicles of drunk drivers. I agree with you that they need to be convicted first, then I would support removing them from the road. Revoking a license is not enough, they will drive anyway. Taking their car for a while will generally make a higher impact. I am not advocating that long term for a 1st or second offense. Maybe 3 weeks then 8. Then you lose everything. This isn’t about protecting criminals that put the lives of the public in danger. Its about protecting the public. I could care less if a drunk driver loses the ability to get around. His/her decision, they must live with the consequences. Am I harsh? According to most I talk to, yes. I fail to see why, aside from those that have driven drunk themselves. I would also apply this philosophy to those that habitually cause wrecks. If they are a danger to life and property on the road, their privileges should be revoked. Driving is a privilege of the state, not a right.

~

Good article. I always get a little “agitated” when hearing about the practices of MADD. And these devices on cars: fortunately GA isn’t considering them. It would be a total pain for me. I don’t even drink.

~

I just read your informative article on the issue of the role of MADD in our society and the metamorphosis of MADD into a group that appears to represent a prohibitionist organization. I am a neuropharmacologist and teach “drug abuse” to sophomore medical students at a private medical school in southern California. I teach the students how to calculate their Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) and we discuss the California laws in relationship to drinking and driving.

What is so telling in your article is that MADD has in essence “forced” government and local law enforcement into “chasing shadows.” That is law enforcement has to pursue the social drinker who does not pose a real threat to society in general, while limiting resources available to deal with the problem drinker.

It is interesting to note that most fatalities occur with a BAC of 0.14 or greater, thus obviating that the 0.08 BAC is not really necessary or helpful in reducing drunk driving fatalities. Indeed, MADD appears to be “criminalizing” the behavior of anyone that takes a drink.

The push by MADD to get states to have electronic devices that prevent the ignition of a vehicle, installed on all vehicles within a said state is most disconcerting. This is because mass public transportation is not generally available in most states. In addition, I cannot believe that my tax dollar, which I am forced to pay, is being used to assist MADD in what appears to be a denigration of the protections afforded by our constitution. While MADD is free to proselytize the public within the framework of public debate and solicit donations to their cause, I am shocked that we are forced to subsidize their crusade.

Thank you for the insightful report.

~

Brilliant observation, Fantastic article. The original intent of MADD was good and they increased awareness so that drunk driving is not acceptable. Unfortunately , the power has has taken on a life of its own. Just like the “war on drugs”, Any legislator who would question MADD would be labeled as “pro-drunk driver”

~

You have written an excellent article and I not only agree as a non drinker I find the roadblocks offensive and intrusive. Like when they stop someone who may end up in trouble at work for being late and the police can’t or won’t do anything to help them. . Or asking you where have you been where are you going AND LET MY SEE YOU”RE PAPERS sound like Gestapo or KGB to you Too?

Thanks for writing this article and please keep up the good work

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 9th, 2005 at 8:55 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Alcohol, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.