Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > So, two people have blood alcohol levels above the legal limit. One > enjoys drinking occasionally but has never experienced any problems in life > or health from doing so. The other overdrinks persistently despite severe > adverse consequences. Do you claim they are both " alcoholics " ? Well, if > both are arrested for DUI, they may very well both be forced to attend AA > where they are expected to identify as " alcoholic. " But a true professional > would be able to do a differential diagnosis to account for person A's > having a high blood alcohol but not being " addicted. " > > > It's very rare in my area for a first time DUI offender to be > sentenced to AA meetings. In those jurisdictions where it does happen, I > wonder if it's viewed as an opportunity for a " scared straight " experience: > > If you continue to drink and break the law, you're gonna wind up > like these people! > ---------------- Well, first off, in ANY jurisdiction where anyone is ordered to attend AA under threat of jail, a lawsuit could be successfully undertaken (Establishment Clause violation, due to religiosity of AA). There is ample precedent. Secondly, if first-time DUI offenders are almost never sentenced to attend " recovery " programs in your area (or elsewhere), they are luckier than I was. In case you're unfamiliar with my history, I was " sentenced " by a government EAP to attend 5 AA meetings a week for 5 months (in addition to 9 months of outpatient 12-step/ " disease " treatment), for a first-time " positive " breathalyzer that was only 1/3 of the DUI level. I'd have lost my job (and 18 years toward a pension) if I did not comply. It was one of the worst traumas of my life. I sued (Establishment Clause) and got released from the AA requirement, but this didn't address being falsely labeled " alcoholic " and all the cruelty and harm done by manipulation, forced " confessions " , and the rest of the deal that the " treatment " entailed. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > So, two people have blood alcohol levels above the legal limit. One > enjoys drinking occasionally but has never experienced any problems in life > or health from doing so. The other overdrinks persistently despite severe > adverse consequences. Do you claim they are both " alcoholics " ? Well, if > both are arrested for DUI, they may very well both be forced to attend AA > where they are expected to identify as " alcoholic. " But a true professional > would be able to do a differential diagnosis to account for person A's > having a high blood alcohol but not being " addicted. " > > > It's very rare in my area for a first time DUI offender to be > sentenced to AA meetings. In those jurisdictions where it does happen, I > wonder if it's viewed as an opportunity for a " scared straight " experience: > > If you continue to drink and break the law, you're gonna wind up > like these people! > ---------------- Well, first off, in ANY jurisdiction where anyone is ordered to attend AA under threat of jail, a lawsuit could be successfully undertaken (Establishment Clause violation, due to religiosity of AA). There is ample precedent. Secondly, if first-time DUI offenders are almost never sentenced to attend " recovery " programs in your area (or elsewhere), they are luckier than I was. In case you're unfamiliar with my history, I was " sentenced " by a government EAP to attend 5 AA meetings a week for 5 months (in addition to 9 months of outpatient 12-step/ " disease " treatment), for a first-time " positive " breathalyzer that was only 1/3 of the DUI level. I'd have lost my job (and 18 years toward a pension) if I did not comply. It was one of the worst traumas of my life. I sued (Establishment Clause) and got released from the AA requirement, but this didn't address being falsely labeled " alcoholic " and all the cruelty and harm done by manipulation, forced " confessions " , and the rest of the deal that the " treatment " entailed. ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Pete, I agree with Rita in that " addiction " has become a word that can mean anything or nothing. Although I may not have been clear, many of my posts have been an attempt to explore that very notion. I believe that there is such a thing as addiction, although it is something I have not yet been able to come up with a satisfactory definition for myself. I have, however, come across many explanations of it that I strongly disagree with, namely those proposed by 12-step groups. I did not mean to offend you, and I am sure I could have stated my position more clearly, particularly as I am still trying to clarify within myself exactly what that position is. I agree with you that heavily tested and consistently manufactured drugs are a safer bet than not knowing what one is picking up on the street. But I also believe that if those drugs were not persistently labeled as necessarily " bad " , perhaps they, too, would be better researched and more consistent. And I think that the need to classify other drugs as " nonaddictive " or necessarily " good " , to be afraid of the " A " word in a sense, sort of perpetuates bad and wrong notions about addiction- the ones that AA would have us buy into. Because to feel the need to say, " This drug is good and non- addictive " is sort of to say " I buy into their notion of what addiction is- that it is something mysterious, something wholly 'other'. " It seems to me too, that to define addictive drugs and addiction as necessary harmful is to give support to the 12-step idea that this " cunning, baffling, and powerful disease " can only lead to jail, insanity, or death. And I just don't buy it. I have been away for a couple of days, and have many posts yet to read, some of which I am sure are more articulate than mine. But I did want to get back to you. Joan > > > > > In response to this excert from your post, as well as several others > > that have attempted to disassociate the effects of certain > > psychiatric medications from " addiction " , I have a few comments. > > > > First, I want to be clear that I am not against people taking > > whatever medications, legal or otherwise, that they feel like > putting > > in their bodies. I have seen people close to me benefit greatly from > > drugs like Paxil and Prozac. > > > > What I have a problem with is the constant attempt to put these > drugs > > in some special category that seperates them from " naughty " drugs > > like cocaine or alcohol. Its the distinction between the " possibly > > habit forming but in a good way " and the " evil and addictive " that > > bothers me. For one thing, I don't agree with the definition > > that " addiction " only refers to harmful use. People, for instance, > > often smoke cigarettes for years before suffering any harmful > > consequenses. Does that mean that they are not addicted? Some on > this > > post would say yes, but I disagree. I was most certainly addicted to > > cigarettes within a month and a half from when I started to smoke at > > 18. There are also a lot of people, perhaps using the concept of > harm > > reduction to the benefit or protection of their addictive behavior, > > who set up their lives in a way that they can use their drug of > > choice without causing excessive harm to themselves. If someone who > > uses heroin every day, can't or doesn't want to do without it, > always > > uses a clean needle, gets the drug from a consistently reputable > > source, remembers to eat, doesn't hang around with dangerous people, > > and doesn't operate heavy machinery while under the influence, is it > > appropriate to say that the individual is not addicted? I know of > > several people who do this with alcohol. They are perhaps too young > > to suffer the physical consequences of long term alcohol use. Does > > this mean they are not addicted, just because their habitual use > does > > not have a negative impact on them? > > > > All this effort to classify psychiatric drugs so differently from so > > called addictive substances just becomes an issue of semantics after > > a while. On another post, someone was attempting to say that because > > pain medications were beneficial to a dying cancer patient, that > > meant that they were not addictive to that person. This person > seemed > > to have the need to call it something else, because the drug seemed > > necessary to relieve suffering, because the drug was " good " rather > > than " naughty " . My question is, what is the problem with calling it > > addictive, even if it is helpful? If I were lying in a hospital bed > > suffering agonizing pain, you better believe I'd want anything > > available to me that could relieve my suffering. And I wouldn't give > > a damn if it were addictive or not. I just don't think it is > > necessary to create an entirely seperate category for certain drugs > > just because their habitual use is veiwed as a good thing. If the > > drug helps, who cares if it is " addictive " ? > > > > Joan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Pete, I agree with Rita in that " addiction " has become a word that can mean anything or nothing. Although I may not have been clear, many of my posts have been an attempt to explore that very notion. I believe that there is such a thing as addiction, although it is something I have not yet been able to come up with a satisfactory definition for myself. I have, however, come across many explanations of it that I strongly disagree with, namely those proposed by 12-step groups. I did not mean to offend you, and I am sure I could have stated my position more clearly, particularly as I am still trying to clarify within myself exactly what that position is. I agree with you that heavily tested and consistently manufactured drugs are a safer bet than not knowing what one is picking up on the street. But I also believe that if those drugs were not persistently labeled as necessarily " bad " , perhaps they, too, would be better researched and more consistent. And I think that the need to classify other drugs as " nonaddictive " or necessarily " good " , to be afraid of the " A " word in a sense, sort of perpetuates bad and wrong notions about addiction- the ones that AA would have us buy into. Because to feel the need to say, " This drug is good and non- addictive " is sort of to say " I buy into their notion of what addiction is- that it is something mysterious, something wholly 'other'. " It seems to me too, that to define addictive drugs and addiction as necessary harmful is to give support to the 12-step idea that this " cunning, baffling, and powerful disease " can only lead to jail, insanity, or death. And I just don't buy it. I have been away for a couple of days, and have many posts yet to read, some of which I am sure are more articulate than mine. But I did want to get back to you. Joan > > > > > In response to this excert from your post, as well as several others > > that have attempted to disassociate the effects of certain > > psychiatric medications from " addiction " , I have a few comments. > > > > First, I want to be clear that I am not against people taking > > whatever medications, legal or otherwise, that they feel like > putting > > in their bodies. I have seen people close to me benefit greatly from > > drugs like Paxil and Prozac. > > > > What I have a problem with is the constant attempt to put these > drugs > > in some special category that seperates them from " naughty " drugs > > like cocaine or alcohol. Its the distinction between the " possibly > > habit forming but in a good way " and the " evil and addictive " that > > bothers me. For one thing, I don't agree with the definition > > that " addiction " only refers to harmful use. People, for instance, > > often smoke cigarettes for years before suffering any harmful > > consequenses. Does that mean that they are not addicted? Some on > this > > post would say yes, but I disagree. I was most certainly addicted to > > cigarettes within a month and a half from when I started to smoke at > > 18. There are also a lot of people, perhaps using the concept of > harm > > reduction to the benefit or protection of their addictive behavior, > > who set up their lives in a way that they can use their drug of > > choice without causing excessive harm to themselves. If someone who > > uses heroin every day, can't or doesn't want to do without it, > always > > uses a clean needle, gets the drug from a consistently reputable > > source, remembers to eat, doesn't hang around with dangerous people, > > and doesn't operate heavy machinery while under the influence, is it > > appropriate to say that the individual is not addicted? I know of > > several people who do this with alcohol. They are perhaps too young > > to suffer the physical consequences of long term alcohol use. Does > > this mean they are not addicted, just because their habitual use > does > > not have a negative impact on them? > > > > All this effort to classify psychiatric drugs so differently from so > > called addictive substances just becomes an issue of semantics after > > a while. On another post, someone was attempting to say that because > > pain medications were beneficial to a dying cancer patient, that > > meant that they were not addictive to that person. This person > seemed > > to have the need to call it something else, because the drug seemed > > necessary to relieve suffering, because the drug was " good " rather > > than " naughty " . My question is, what is the problem with calling it > > addictive, even if it is helpful? If I were lying in a hospital bed > > suffering agonizing pain, you better believe I'd want anything > > available to me that could relieve my suffering. And I wouldn't give > > a damn if it were addictive or not. I just don't think it is > > necessary to create an entirely seperate category for certain drugs > > just because their habitual use is veiwed as a good thing. If the > > drug helps, who cares if it is " addictive " ? > > > > Joan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Pete, I agree with Rita in that " addiction " has become a word that can mean anything or nothing. Although I may not have been clear, many of my posts have been an attempt to explore that very notion. I believe that there is such a thing as addiction, although it is something I have not yet been able to come up with a satisfactory definition for myself. I have, however, come across many explanations of it that I strongly disagree with, namely those proposed by 12-step groups. I did not mean to offend you, and I am sure I could have stated my position more clearly, particularly as I am still trying to clarify within myself exactly what that position is. I agree with you that heavily tested and consistently manufactured drugs are a safer bet than not knowing what one is picking up on the street. But I also believe that if those drugs were not persistently labeled as necessarily " bad " , perhaps they, too, would be better researched and more consistent. And I think that the need to classify other drugs as " nonaddictive " or necessarily " good " , to be afraid of the " A " word in a sense, sort of perpetuates bad and wrong notions about addiction- the ones that AA would have us buy into. Because to feel the need to say, " This drug is good and non- addictive " is sort of to say " I buy into their notion of what addiction is- that it is something mysterious, something wholly 'other'. " It seems to me too, that to define addictive drugs and addiction as necessary harmful is to give support to the 12-step idea that this " cunning, baffling, and powerful disease " can only lead to jail, insanity, or death. And I just don't buy it. I have been away for a couple of days, and have many posts yet to read, some of which I am sure are more articulate than mine. But I did want to get back to you. Joan > > > > > In response to this excert from your post, as well as several others > > that have attempted to disassociate the effects of certain > > psychiatric medications from " addiction " , I have a few comments. > > > > First, I want to be clear that I am not against people taking > > whatever medications, legal or otherwise, that they feel like > putting > > in their bodies. I have seen people close to me benefit greatly from > > drugs like Paxil and Prozac. > > > > What I have a problem with is the constant attempt to put these > drugs > > in some special category that seperates them from " naughty " drugs > > like cocaine or alcohol. Its the distinction between the " possibly > > habit forming but in a good way " and the " evil and addictive " that > > bothers me. For one thing, I don't agree with the definition > > that " addiction " only refers to harmful use. People, for instance, > > often smoke cigarettes for years before suffering any harmful > > consequenses. Does that mean that they are not addicted? Some on > this > > post would say yes, but I disagree. I was most certainly addicted to > > cigarettes within a month and a half from when I started to smoke at > > 18. There are also a lot of people, perhaps using the concept of > harm > > reduction to the benefit or protection of their addictive behavior, > > who set up their lives in a way that they can use their drug of > > choice without causing excessive harm to themselves. If someone who > > uses heroin every day, can't or doesn't want to do without it, > always > > uses a clean needle, gets the drug from a consistently reputable > > source, remembers to eat, doesn't hang around with dangerous people, > > and doesn't operate heavy machinery while under the influence, is it > > appropriate to say that the individual is not addicted? I know of > > several people who do this with alcohol. They are perhaps too young > > to suffer the physical consequences of long term alcohol use. Does > > this mean they are not addicted, just because their habitual use > does > > not have a negative impact on them? > > > > All this effort to classify psychiatric drugs so differently from so > > called addictive substances just becomes an issue of semantics after > > a while. On another post, someone was attempting to say that because > > pain medications were beneficial to a dying cancer patient, that > > meant that they were not addictive to that person. This person > seemed > > to have the need to call it something else, because the drug seemed > > necessary to relieve suffering, because the drug was " good " rather > > than " naughty " . My question is, what is the problem with calling it > > addictive, even if it is helpful? If I were lying in a hospital bed > > suffering agonizing pain, you better believe I'd want anything > > available to me that could relieve my suffering. And I wouldn't give > > a damn if it were addictive or not. I just don't think it is > > necessary to create an entirely seperate category for certain drugs > > just because their habitual use is veiwed as a good thing. If the > > drug helps, who cares if it is " addictive " ? > > > > Joan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 ----- Original Message ----- > Well, first off, in ANY jurisdiction where anyone is ordered to > attend AA under threat of jail, a lawsuit could be successfully > undertaken (Establishment Clause violation, due to religiosity of > AA). There is ample precedent. I'm waiting for the first opportunity to do so. We have a local drug court judge who actually orders defendants to work specific steps and produce their written proof. However, few clients have the bucks to take on the system to this degree, and I can't personally afford to bankroll it. > Secondly, if first-time DUI offenders are almost never sentenced > to attend " recovery " programs in your area (or elsewhere), they are > luckier than I was. In case you're unfamiliar with my history, I > was " sentenced " by a government EAP to attend 5 AA meetings a week > for 5 months (in addition to 9 months of outpatient 12-step/ " disease " > treatment), for a first-time " positive " breathalyzer that was only > 1/3 of the DUI level. I'd have lost my job (and 18 years toward a > pension) if I did not comply. It was one of the worst traumas of my > life. I sued (Establishment Clause) and got released from the AA > requirement, but this didn't address being falsely labeled > " alcoholic " and all the cruelty and harm done by manipulation, > forced " confessions " , and the rest of the deal that the " treatment " > entailed. Aren't you employed in a federally-regulated industry? That is a far cry from a garden variety first " deuce. " First time DUI offenders in California are ordered to take a three-month class, but it's more along the lines of an extended traffic school, with " Red Asphalt " style movies. There is some reference to alcoholism, but attendees are not bounced if they don't engage in confession and repentance. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 ----- Original Message ----- > Well, first off, in ANY jurisdiction where anyone is ordered to > attend AA under threat of jail, a lawsuit could be successfully > undertaken (Establishment Clause violation, due to religiosity of > AA). There is ample precedent. I'm waiting for the first opportunity to do so. We have a local drug court judge who actually orders defendants to work specific steps and produce their written proof. However, few clients have the bucks to take on the system to this degree, and I can't personally afford to bankroll it. > Secondly, if first-time DUI offenders are almost never sentenced > to attend " recovery " programs in your area (or elsewhere), they are > luckier than I was. In case you're unfamiliar with my history, I > was " sentenced " by a government EAP to attend 5 AA meetings a week > for 5 months (in addition to 9 months of outpatient 12-step/ " disease " > treatment), for a first-time " positive " breathalyzer that was only > 1/3 of the DUI level. I'd have lost my job (and 18 years toward a > pension) if I did not comply. It was one of the worst traumas of my > life. I sued (Establishment Clause) and got released from the AA > requirement, but this didn't address being falsely labeled > " alcoholic " and all the cruelty and harm done by manipulation, > forced " confessions " , and the rest of the deal that the " treatment " > entailed. Aren't you employed in a federally-regulated industry? That is a far cry from a garden variety first " deuce. " First time DUI offenders in California are ordered to take a three-month class, but it's more along the lines of an extended traffic school, with " Red Asphalt " style movies. There is some reference to alcoholism, but attendees are not bounced if they don't engage in confession and repentance. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 ----- Original Message ----- > Well, first off, in ANY jurisdiction where anyone is ordered to > attend AA under threat of jail, a lawsuit could be successfully > undertaken (Establishment Clause violation, due to religiosity of > AA). There is ample precedent. I'm waiting for the first opportunity to do so. We have a local drug court judge who actually orders defendants to work specific steps and produce their written proof. However, few clients have the bucks to take on the system to this degree, and I can't personally afford to bankroll it. > Secondly, if first-time DUI offenders are almost never sentenced > to attend " recovery " programs in your area (or elsewhere), they are > luckier than I was. In case you're unfamiliar with my history, I > was " sentenced " by a government EAP to attend 5 AA meetings a week > for 5 months (in addition to 9 months of outpatient 12-step/ " disease " > treatment), for a first-time " positive " breathalyzer that was only > 1/3 of the DUI level. I'd have lost my job (and 18 years toward a > pension) if I did not comply. It was one of the worst traumas of my > life. I sued (Establishment Clause) and got released from the AA > requirement, but this didn't address being falsely labeled > " alcoholic " and all the cruelty and harm done by manipulation, > forced " confessions " , and the rest of the deal that the " treatment " > entailed. Aren't you employed in a federally-regulated industry? That is a far cry from a garden variety first " deuce. " First time DUI offenders in California are ordered to take a three-month class, but it's more along the lines of an extended traffic school, with " Red Asphalt " style movies. There is some reference to alcoholism, but attendees are not bounced if they don't engage in confession and repentance. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 > First time DUI offenders in California are ordered to take a >three-month class, but it's more along the lines of an extended >traffic >school, with " Red Asphalt " style movies. There is some reference to >alcoholism, but attendees are not bounced if they don't engage in >confession >and repentance. Actually, I've been told this is the case in my state, too, although the class doesn't last three months here. One person I talked to who had to go to " DUI School " told me that the person leading the class had to repeatedly remind some folks that it wasn't an AA meeting. Apparently, they kept trying to tell their stories. The person I talked to might have been lucky, though. The legal system has guidelines they are supposed to go by. That doesn't mean they always do, particularly on the local level when sometimes there is no one at the time willing or interested in saying, " You can't do that. " Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <rita66@w...> > > > Well, first off, in ANY jurisdiction where anyone is ordered to > > attend AA under threat of jail, a lawsuit could be successfully > > undertaken (Establishment Clause violation, due to religiosity of > > AA). There is ample precedent. > > I'm waiting for the first opportunity to do so. We have a local drug > court judge who actually orders defendants to work specific steps and > produce their written proof. > However, few clients have the bucks to take on the system to this > degree, and I can't personally afford to bankroll it. > > > Secondly, if first-time DUI offenders are almost never sentenced > > to attend " recovery " programs in your area (or elsewhere), they are > > luckier than I was. In case you're unfamiliar with my history, I > > was " sentenced " by a government EAP to attend 5 AA meetings a week > > for 5 months (in addition to 9 months of outpatient 12- step/ " disease " > > treatment), for a first-time " positive " breathalyzer that was only > > 1/3 of the DUI level. I'd have lost my job (and 18 years toward a > > pension) if I did not comply. It was one of the worst traumas of my > > life. I sued (Establishment Clause) and got released from the AA > > requirement, but this didn't address being falsely labeled > > " alcoholic " and all the cruelty and harm done by manipulation, > > forced " confessions " , and the rest of the deal that the " treatment " > > entailed. > > Aren't you employed in a federally-regulated industry? That is a far > cry from a garden variety first " deuce. " > First time DUI offenders in California are ordered to take a > three-month class, but it's more along the lines of an extended traffic > school, with " Red Asphalt " style movies. There is some reference to > alcoholism, but attendees are not bounced if they don't engage in confession > and repentance. > > Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 > First time DUI offenders in California are ordered to take a >three-month class, but it's more along the lines of an extended >traffic >school, with " Red Asphalt " style movies. There is some reference to >alcoholism, but attendees are not bounced if they don't engage in >confession >and repentance. Actually, I've been told this is the case in my state, too, although the class doesn't last three months here. One person I talked to who had to go to " DUI School " told me that the person leading the class had to repeatedly remind some folks that it wasn't an AA meeting. Apparently, they kept trying to tell their stories. The person I talked to might have been lucky, though. The legal system has guidelines they are supposed to go by. That doesn't mean they always do, particularly on the local level when sometimes there is no one at the time willing or interested in saying, " You can't do that. " Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <rita66@w...> > > > Well, first off, in ANY jurisdiction where anyone is ordered to > > attend AA under threat of jail, a lawsuit could be successfully > > undertaken (Establishment Clause violation, due to religiosity of > > AA). There is ample precedent. > > I'm waiting for the first opportunity to do so. We have a local drug > court judge who actually orders defendants to work specific steps and > produce their written proof. > However, few clients have the bucks to take on the system to this > degree, and I can't personally afford to bankroll it. > > > Secondly, if first-time DUI offenders are almost never sentenced > > to attend " recovery " programs in your area (or elsewhere), they are > > luckier than I was. In case you're unfamiliar with my history, I > > was " sentenced " by a government EAP to attend 5 AA meetings a week > > for 5 months (in addition to 9 months of outpatient 12- step/ " disease " > > treatment), for a first-time " positive " breathalyzer that was only > > 1/3 of the DUI level. I'd have lost my job (and 18 years toward a > > pension) if I did not comply. It was one of the worst traumas of my > > life. I sued (Establishment Clause) and got released from the AA > > requirement, but this didn't address being falsely labeled > > " alcoholic " and all the cruelty and harm done by manipulation, > > forced " confessions " , and the rest of the deal that the " treatment " > > entailed. > > Aren't you employed in a federally-regulated industry? That is a far > cry from a garden variety first " deuce. " > First time DUI offenders in California are ordered to take a > three-month class, but it's more along the lines of an extended traffic > school, with " Red Asphalt " style movies. There is some reference to > alcoholism, but attendees are not bounced if they don't engage in confession > and repentance. > > Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 > First time DUI offenders in California are ordered to take a >three-month class, but it's more along the lines of an extended >traffic >school, with " Red Asphalt " style movies. There is some reference to >alcoholism, but attendees are not bounced if they don't engage in >confession >and repentance. Actually, I've been told this is the case in my state, too, although the class doesn't last three months here. One person I talked to who had to go to " DUI School " told me that the person leading the class had to repeatedly remind some folks that it wasn't an AA meeting. Apparently, they kept trying to tell their stories. The person I talked to might have been lucky, though. The legal system has guidelines they are supposed to go by. That doesn't mean they always do, particularly on the local level when sometimes there is no one at the time willing or interested in saying, " You can't do that. " Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <rita66@w...> > > > Well, first off, in ANY jurisdiction where anyone is ordered to > > attend AA under threat of jail, a lawsuit could be successfully > > undertaken (Establishment Clause violation, due to religiosity of > > AA). There is ample precedent. > > I'm waiting for the first opportunity to do so. We have a local drug > court judge who actually orders defendants to work specific steps and > produce their written proof. > However, few clients have the bucks to take on the system to this > degree, and I can't personally afford to bankroll it. > > > Secondly, if first-time DUI offenders are almost never sentenced > > to attend " recovery " programs in your area (or elsewhere), they are > > luckier than I was. In case you're unfamiliar with my history, I > > was " sentenced " by a government EAP to attend 5 AA meetings a week > > for 5 months (in addition to 9 months of outpatient 12- step/ " disease " > > treatment), for a first-time " positive " breathalyzer that was only > > 1/3 of the DUI level. I'd have lost my job (and 18 years toward a > > pension) if I did not comply. It was one of the worst traumas of my > > life. I sued (Establishment Clause) and got released from the AA > > requirement, but this didn't address being falsely labeled > > " alcoholic " and all the cruelty and harm done by manipulation, > > forced " confessions " , and the rest of the deal that the " treatment " > > entailed. > > Aren't you employed in a federally-regulated industry? That is a far > cry from a garden variety first " deuce. " > First time DUI offenders in California are ordered to take a > three-month class, but it's more along the lines of an extended traffic > school, with " Red Asphalt " style movies. There is some reference to > alcoholism, but attendees are not bounced if they don't engage in confession > and repentance. > > Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 I'm waiting for the first opportunity to do so. We have a local drug court judge who actually orders defendants to work specific steps and produce their written proof. However, few clients have the bucks to take on the system to this degree, and I can't personally afford to bankroll it. I'm licensed in two states. Would love to do it as a labor of the sheerest love. Where is this happening? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 I'm waiting for the first opportunity to do so. We have a local drug court judge who actually orders defendants to work specific steps and produce their written proof. However, few clients have the bucks to take on the system to this degree, and I can't personally afford to bankroll it. I'm licensed in two states. Would love to do it as a labor of the sheerest love. Where is this happening? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 I'm waiting for the first opportunity to do so. We have a local drug court judge who actually orders defendants to work specific steps and produce their written proof. However, few clients have the bucks to take on the system to this degree, and I can't personally afford to bankroll it. I'm licensed in two states. Would love to do it as a labor of the sheerest love. Where is this happening? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 To to 12 step free , thanks for all of the info, time to move on, please remove my name from your emailing list. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 To to 12 step free , thanks for all of the info, time to move on, please remove my name from your emailing list. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.