Denial, judges (was: New here)

[Guest guest]

> --------------

>

> It was the judge presiding in my Establishment Clause suit

against the forced AA. Whether or not I was legitimately " alcoholic "

was not germane to the suit -- no one from " normie " to Skid Row bum or

anything in between can be coerced to AA by the state -- but just as

some sort of personal jibe, Her Honor stated that I " obviously have an

alcoholism problem " if I had a positive Breathalyzer at work. There

had been not a shred of anything approaching a personal history or

assessment presented to her. It was entirely her uninformed and

unqualified opinion on the matter.<

Which is precisely the kind of thinking that results in the outrageous

and farcical coercion stories that crop up all over the place in the

most unexpected of circumstances. When someone like the professional

stepper whose story I described is complaining, then something is VERY

WRONG.

It is also worth noting that the more accurate blood test, to which

you were fully entitled, was COMPLIANT with the BAC limit, i.e

negative for procedural purposes.

P.

[Guest guest]

> I won't say it's 100 percent obvious all the time, but I believe

it's

> usually pretty obvious. For better or worse, if it weren't that

obvious,

> some stereotypes about alcoholics never would have developed. Not

that

> everybody who has a definite problem with alcohol fits stereotypes,

of

> course.

As not everybody fits ethnic stereotpyes, of course, but er, there

must be some truth in them for them to have developed.... (More on

this later).

Regarding the crime and accident stats that you and Mona have quoted,

these need to be addressed more than superficially. If drinking is

involved in 4 out of 10 auto accidents for example, we are left with

the interesting stat that it is not in 6 out of 10. Does that mean

they were caused by the driver not drinking? Now that isn't a serious

suggestion, but an illustration of the care with which such stats need

to be addressed and the reality of in-buiilt assumptions assessed. In

addition, these stats are themselves often questionable. An accident

can be deemed " Alcohol related " if the driver had not been drinking

but had been carrying passengers who had, for example. (Just as a

teen can be coerced to AA, not even NA, just for sitting in a car with

other kids smoking pot).

P.

[Guest guest]

> I won't say it's 100 percent obvious all the time, but I believe

it's

> usually pretty obvious. For better or worse, if it weren't that

obvious,

> some stereotypes about alcoholics never would have developed. Not

that

> everybody who has a definite problem with alcohol fits stereotypes,

of

> course.

As not everybody fits ethnic stereotpyes, of course, but er, there

must be some truth in them for them to have developed.... (More on

this later).

Regarding the crime and accident stats that you and Mona have quoted,

these need to be addressed more than superficially. If drinking is

involved in 4 out of 10 auto accidents for example, we are left with

the interesting stat that it is not in 6 out of 10. Does that mean

they were caused by the driver not drinking? Now that isn't a serious

suggestion, but an illustration of the care with which such stats need

to be addressed and the reality of in-buiilt assumptions assessed. In

addition, these stats are themselves often questionable. An accident

can be deemed " Alcohol related " if the driver had not been drinking

but had been carrying passengers who had, for example. (Just as a

teen can be coerced to AA, not even NA, just for sitting in a car with

other kids smoking pot).

P.

[Guest guest]

> I won't say it's 100 percent obvious all the time, but I believe

it's

> usually pretty obvious. For better or worse, if it weren't that

obvious,

> some stereotypes about alcoholics never would have developed. Not

that

> everybody who has a definite problem with alcohol fits stereotypes,

of

> course.

As not everybody fits ethnic stereotpyes, of course, but er, there

must be some truth in them for them to have developed.... (More on

this later).

Regarding the crime and accident stats that you and Mona have quoted,

these need to be addressed more than superficially. If drinking is

involved in 4 out of 10 auto accidents for example, we are left with

the interesting stat that it is not in 6 out of 10. Does that mean

they were caused by the driver not drinking? Now that isn't a serious

suggestion, but an illustration of the care with which such stats need

to be addressed and the reality of in-buiilt assumptions assessed. In

addition, these stats are themselves often questionable. An accident

can be deemed " Alcohol related " if the driver had not been drinking

but had been carrying passengers who had, for example. (Just as a

teen can be coerced to AA, not even NA, just for sitting in a car with

other kids smoking pot).

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> I saw that in DSM-IV®.... " denial engaging disorder. "

I doubt it. If a DSM-IV® had been published, they'd all be talking

about in on the professional lists and they arent.

You presumably mean the DSM-III® which preceded the DSM-IV. I can't

claim to have read either book in their entirety but I've never heard

of this one, and I've read most of the DSM-IV and gone over the

Alcohol/Substance Abuse/Dependence bits several times. Perhpas

it was axed when as part of the changes but it I think it should

still be listed somewhere in that case. Still I'll look it up in the

index when I get home.

As I've indicated, I believe denial actually is a significant

phenomonon in addiction, what is patently wrong with what the steppers

say is that in fact it is a feature of many disorders, not unique to

addiction at all. It is pretty well a requirement of a psychosis.

" What's the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic? A

psychotic's crazy but he's happy that way - a neurotic's crazy but it

worries him to death. " - Groucho Marx.

however the reality of denial does not mean unbtrained judges should

be making decisions about it, but as we have seen, they can hardly do

much worse than the professional steppers who use exactly the same

reasoning as the judge in Rita's lawsuit (and not to far from what

I've been seeing here).

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> I saw that in DSM-IV®.... " denial engaging disorder. "

I doubt it. If a DSM-IV® had been published, they'd all be talking

about in on the professional lists and they arent.

You presumably mean the DSM-III® which preceded the DSM-IV. I can't

claim to have read either book in their entirety but I've never heard

of this one, and I've read most of the DSM-IV and gone over the

Alcohol/Substance Abuse/Dependence bits several times. Perhpas

it was axed when as part of the changes but it I think it should

still be listed somewhere in that case. Still I'll look it up in the

index when I get home.

As I've indicated, I believe denial actually is a significant

phenomonon in addiction, what is patently wrong with what the steppers

say is that in fact it is a feature of many disorders, not unique to

addiction at all. It is pretty well a requirement of a psychosis.

" What's the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic? A

psychotic's crazy but he's happy that way - a neurotic's crazy but it

worries him to death. " - Groucho Marx.

however the reality of denial does not mean unbtrained judges should

be making decisions about it, but as we have seen, they can hardly do

much worse than the professional steppers who use exactly the same

reasoning as the judge in Rita's lawsuit (and not to far from what

I've been seeing here).

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> I saw that in DSM-IV®.... " denial engaging disorder. "

I doubt it. If a DSM-IV® had been published, they'd all be talking

about in on the professional lists and they arent.

You presumably mean the DSM-III® which preceded the DSM-IV. I can't

claim to have read either book in their entirety but I've never heard

of this one, and I've read most of the DSM-IV and gone over the

Alcohol/Substance Abuse/Dependence bits several times. Perhpas

it was axed when as part of the changes but it I think it should

still be listed somewhere in that case. Still I'll look it up in the

index when I get home.

As I've indicated, I believe denial actually is a significant

phenomonon in addiction, what is patently wrong with what the steppers

say is that in fact it is a feature of many disorders, not unique to

addiction at all. It is pretty well a requirement of a psychosis.

" What's the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic? A

psychotic's crazy but he's happy that way - a neurotic's crazy but it

worries him to death. " - Groucho Marx.

however the reality of denial does not mean unbtrained judges should

be making decisions about it, but as we have seen, they can hardly do

much worse than the professional steppers who use exactly the same

reasoning as the judge in Rita's lawsuit (and not to far from what

I've been seeing here).

P.

[Guest guest]

At 01:23 AM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

>My deviant behavior class presented a related idea: those who conform

>to they label they receive get off much lighter than those who don't.

> This applied to any mental illness or disorder. Embracing and acting

>out the role of " sick " as it was defined by those in power allowed

>people out of the system much faster than did denying they had a

>problem or just acting " normal. " I thought that was very interesting.

> There are perks for acceptance that go far beyond the actual

>behaviors. I have the citations if anyone wants.

So, applying it to alcoholism -- if you get labelled alcoholic, you'll

be treated better if you do drink heavily than if you drink normally

and point out that you don't have a problem. Yeah, that does

sound about right.

I'd like those citations if you have them handy.

[Guest guest]

At 01:23 AM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

>My deviant behavior class presented a related idea: those who conform

>to they label they receive get off much lighter than those who don't.

> This applied to any mental illness or disorder. Embracing and acting

>out the role of " sick " as it was defined by those in power allowed

>people out of the system much faster than did denying they had a

>problem or just acting " normal. " I thought that was very interesting.

> There are perks for acceptance that go far beyond the actual

>behaviors. I have the citations if anyone wants.

So, applying it to alcoholism -- if you get labelled alcoholic, you'll

be treated better if you do drink heavily than if you drink normally

and point out that you don't have a problem. Yeah, that does

sound about right.

I'd like those citations if you have them handy.

[Guest guest]

At 01:23 AM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

>My deviant behavior class presented a related idea: those who conform

>to they label they receive get off much lighter than those who don't.

> This applied to any mental illness or disorder. Embracing and acting

>out the role of " sick " as it was defined by those in power allowed

>people out of the system much faster than did denying they had a

>problem or just acting " normal. " I thought that was very interesting.

> There are perks for acceptance that go far beyond the actual

>behaviors. I have the citations if anyone wants.

So, applying it to alcoholism -- if you get labelled alcoholic, you'll

be treated better if you do drink heavily than if you drink normally

and point out that you don't have a problem. Yeah, that does

sound about right.

I'd like those citations if you have them handy.

[Guest guest]

> In

> addition, these stats are themselves often questionable. An accident

> can be deemed " Alcohol related " if the driver had not been drinking

> but had been carrying passengers who had, for example. (Just as a

> teen can be coerced to AA, not even NA, just for sitting in a car with

> other kids smoking pot).

>

------------------

Good point. It was pointed out a while back that the reason MADD's stats

on alcohol-related traffic accidents ( " drinking and driving " ) is so much higher

than other accountings, is because they count accidents where the driver is

sober but a drunk PEDESTRIAN staggers off the curb.

Drunk driving is a serious enough issue in itself, there is no need to

inflate the figures and invite ridicule.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

At 12:41 PM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote:

> Good point. It was pointed out a while back that the reason MADD's

> stats on alcohol-related traffic accidents ( " drinking and driving " ) is so

> much higher than other accountings, is because they count accidents where

> the driver is sober but a drunk PEDESTRIAN staggers off the curb.

>

> Drunk driving is a serious enough issue in itself, there is no need

> to inflate the figures and invite ridicule.

I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have

misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only

eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a

few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for

bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded

that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle

accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%.

I was really surprised when I first learned that. I knew that the

figures of MADD et al were inflated, but had no idea they were

*that* inflated.

Alcohol-caused crashes tend to be worse than average, though,

since drunk drivers do crazy things like going the wrong way

on a freeway. Not all crashes with drunk drivers are so grim,

of course, but the average crash is somewhat worse with a

drunk driver than without one. So if you only counted deaths

and maimings, and ignored the lesser accidents, the figure

would probably be higher than 4%.

Dang. Wish I had those citations.

[Guest guest]

At 12:41 PM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote:

> Good point. It was pointed out a while back that the reason MADD's

> stats on alcohol-related traffic accidents ( " drinking and driving " ) is so

> much higher than other accountings, is because they count accidents where

> the driver is sober but a drunk PEDESTRIAN staggers off the curb.

>

> Drunk driving is a serious enough issue in itself, there is no need

> to inflate the figures and invite ridicule.

I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have

misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only

eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a

few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for

bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded

that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle

accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%.

I was really surprised when I first learned that. I knew that the

figures of MADD et al were inflated, but had no idea they were

*that* inflated.

Alcohol-caused crashes tend to be worse than average, though,

since drunk drivers do crazy things like going the wrong way

on a freeway. Not all crashes with drunk drivers are so grim,

of course, but the average crash is somewhat worse with a

drunk driver than without one. So if you only counted deaths

and maimings, and ignored the lesser accidents, the figure

would probably be higher than 4%.

Dang. Wish I had those citations.

[Guest guest]

At 12:41 PM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote:

> Good point. It was pointed out a while back that the reason MADD's

> stats on alcohol-related traffic accidents ( " drinking and driving " ) is so

> much higher than other accountings, is because they count accidents where

> the driver is sober but a drunk PEDESTRIAN staggers off the curb.

>

> Drunk driving is a serious enough issue in itself, there is no need

> to inflate the figures and invite ridicule.

I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have

misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only

eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a

few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for

bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded

that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle

accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%.

I was really surprised when I first learned that. I knew that the

figures of MADD et al were inflated, but had no idea they were

*that* inflated.

Alcohol-caused crashes tend to be worse than average, though,

since drunk drivers do crazy things like going the wrong way

on a freeway. Not all crashes with drunk drivers are so grim,

of course, but the average crash is somewhat worse with a

drunk driver than without one. So if you only counted deaths

and maimings, and ignored the lesser accidents, the figure

would probably be higher than 4%.

Dang. Wish I had those citations.

[Guest guest]

>

> I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have

> misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only

> eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a

> few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for

> bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded

> that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle

> accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%.

I'm not a hyper-fan of MADD, and I haven't gone to the National Highway

Transportation Safety Administration's website, but what I have read in the

past tells me alcohol-related accidents are probably higher than 4 percent.

And I don't think that's " fair " to factor out bad weather and other risk

factors, inasmuch as sober drivers will have better responses to weather

conditions.

So, " knocking it down " to 2-4 pct. is, in my opinion, ***disinflating***

alcohol-related traffic accident numbers is a reverse spin.

It's like alcohol-related job accidents. If I knock out wet floors, and

other workplace poor environments, of course I can " show " that alcohol

doesn't cause many workplace accidents, while burying the fact that someone

drinking will have poorer actions in less than ideal environments.

I'd like to see these " 2-4 pct. " numbers.

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

> I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have

> misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only

> eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a

> few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for

> bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded

> that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle

> accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%.

I'm not a hyper-fan of MADD, and I haven't gone to the National Highway

Transportation Safety Administration's website, but what I have read in the

past tells me alcohol-related accidents are probably higher than 4 percent.

And I don't think that's " fair " to factor out bad weather and other risk

factors, inasmuch as sober drivers will have better responses to weather

conditions.

So, " knocking it down " to 2-4 pct. is, in my opinion, ***disinflating***

alcohol-related traffic accident numbers is a reverse spin.

It's like alcohol-related job accidents. If I knock out wet floors, and

other workplace poor environments, of course I can " show " that alcohol

doesn't cause many workplace accidents, while burying the fact that someone

drinking will have poorer actions in less than ideal environments.

I'd like to see these " 2-4 pct. " numbers.

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

> I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have

> misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only

> eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a

> few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for

> bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded

> that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle

> accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%.

I'm not a hyper-fan of MADD, and I haven't gone to the National Highway

Transportation Safety Administration's website, but what I have read in the

past tells me alcohol-related accidents are probably higher than 4 percent.

And I don't think that's " fair " to factor out bad weather and other risk

factors, inasmuch as sober drivers will have better responses to weather

conditions.

So, " knocking it down " to 2-4 pct. is, in my opinion, ***disinflating***

alcohol-related traffic accident numbers is a reverse spin.

It's like alcohol-related job accidents. If I knock out wet floors, and

other workplace poor environments, of course I can " show " that alcohol

doesn't cause many workplace accidents, while burying the fact that someone

drinking will have poorer actions in less than ideal environments.

I'd like to see these " 2-4 pct. " numbers.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical suspicion says the survey you reference "knocked them out."

Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and "merely" driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper reported the accident as "alcohol-related."

However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all the time, before and since.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical suspicion says the survey you reference "knocked them out."

Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and "merely" driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper reported the accident as "alcohol-related."

However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all the time, before and since.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical suspicion says the survey you reference "knocked them out."

Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and "merely" driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper reported the accident as "alcohol-related."

However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all the time, before and since.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers.

I personally wouldn't consider that "essentially meaningless."

I agree. It is going to be the very rare case that the "designated driver" in a car full of drunks causes the accident. Even in the case involving my son, we were all astonished when the driver showed up with no alcohol in his system. He is a notorious abuser of alcohol who drives intoxicated all the time.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers.

I personally wouldn't consider that "essentially meaningless."

I agree. It is going to be the very rare case that the "designated driver" in a car full of drunks causes the accident. Even in the case involving my son, we were all astonished when the driver showed up with no alcohol in his system. He is a notorious abuser of alcohol who drives intoxicated all the time.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers.

I personally wouldn't consider that "essentially meaningless."

I agree. It is going to be the very rare case that the "designated driver" in a car full of drunks causes the accident. Even in the case involving my son, we were all astonished when the driver showed up with no alcohol in his system. He is a notorious abuser of alcohol who drives intoxicated all the time.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding "alcohol related accidents" (among other things!) I have read somewhere (sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering BAC limits.

I think the lower BAC limits are getting ridiculous -- .08 is silly, imo.

However, I also know that it is going to be rare for a driver to be sober while the passengers are not. Indeed, that this was the case in the instance in which my son died shocked us all very much, since the dreiveer is a notorious drunk.

It just so happened he hadn't had any alcohol that day -- yet. He was merely "playing chicken" on the highway.

He did, BTW, test positive for THC. But it was impossible to determine when he had smoked pot last, and he insisted he had not smoked that day.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding "alcohol related accidents" (among other things!) I have read somewhere (sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering BAC limits.

I think the lower BAC limits are getting ridiculous -- .08 is silly, imo.

However, I also know that it is going to be rare for a driver to be sober while the passengers are not. Indeed, that this was the case in the instance in which my son died shocked us all very much, since the dreiveer is a notorious drunk.

It just so happened he hadn't had any alcohol that day -- yet. He was merely "playing chicken" on the highway.

He did, BTW, test positive for THC. But it was impossible to determine when he had smoked pot last, and he insisted he had not smoked that day.

--Mona--