Denial, judges (was: New here)

[Guest guest]

> > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than

> America.

> > Steve

>

> What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

Steve

[Guest guest]

> > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than

> America.

> > Steve

>

> What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

Steve

[Guest guest]

> > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than

> America.

> > Steve

>

> What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

Steve

[Guest guest]

> From what I have heard, in the state of Washington, all defendants

suspected of *possibly* having a substance use disorder are PROFESSIONALLY

assessed. Professional assessments go into a lot of detail about medical,

legal, and personal/social/job history, and use corroborating sources. If

the assessment shows no clinical disorder present, the judge accepts that --

in DUI cases, the person would then be mandated to attend a brief

educational session in addition to any fine or license suspension. But

" treatment " of any kind is only ordered if a professional evaluation

determines that the individual meets the criteria for a substance use

disorder -- and even then, there are different levels of treatment for mild

" substance abuse " than for a " substance dependency " diagnosis.

>

> Probably the WA system has some flaws -- but I think it's a hell of

an improvement over letting a JUDGE decide what diagnosis and treatment DUI

defendents merit.

>

> And no, it is NOT generally " obvious " that any particular person is

alcohol dependent -- really, anyone can make an error in judgement and

obtain a DUI. Most often, it is a one-time thing and neither " treatment "

nor total abstinence is warranted.

>

> ~Rita

Ok, let's cut to brass tacks again. If a professional counselor in

Washington State said, upon evaluation after a criminal conviction for an

alcohol-related crime, " Ms. X (or Ms. Rita), we believe you need to go to a

sobriety support group, " what then? Do you still have a blanket objection to

coerced non-religious sobriety groups for convicted criminals?

Steve

[Guest guest]

> From what I have heard, in the state of Washington, all defendants

suspected of *possibly* having a substance use disorder are PROFESSIONALLY

assessed. Professional assessments go into a lot of detail about medical,

legal, and personal/social/job history, and use corroborating sources. If

the assessment shows no clinical disorder present, the judge accepts that --

in DUI cases, the person would then be mandated to attend a brief

educational session in addition to any fine or license suspension. But

" treatment " of any kind is only ordered if a professional evaluation

determines that the individual meets the criteria for a substance use

disorder -- and even then, there are different levels of treatment for mild

" substance abuse " than for a " substance dependency " diagnosis.

>

> Probably the WA system has some flaws -- but I think it's a hell of

an improvement over letting a JUDGE decide what diagnosis and treatment DUI

defendents merit.

>

> And no, it is NOT generally " obvious " that any particular person is

alcohol dependent -- really, anyone can make an error in judgement and

obtain a DUI. Most often, it is a one-time thing and neither " treatment "

nor total abstinence is warranted.

>

> ~Rita

Ok, let's cut to brass tacks again. If a professional counselor in

Washington State said, upon evaluation after a criminal conviction for an

alcohol-related crime, " Ms. X (or Ms. Rita), we believe you need to go to a

sobriety support group, " what then? Do you still have a blanket objection to

coerced non-religious sobriety groups for convicted criminals?

Steve

[Guest guest]

> From what I have heard, in the state of Washington, all defendants

suspected of *possibly* having a substance use disorder are PROFESSIONALLY

assessed. Professional assessments go into a lot of detail about medical,

legal, and personal/social/job history, and use corroborating sources. If

the assessment shows no clinical disorder present, the judge accepts that --

in DUI cases, the person would then be mandated to attend a brief

educational session in addition to any fine or license suspension. But

" treatment " of any kind is only ordered if a professional evaluation

determines that the individual meets the criteria for a substance use

disorder -- and even then, there are different levels of treatment for mild

" substance abuse " than for a " substance dependency " diagnosis.

>

> Probably the WA system has some flaws -- but I think it's a hell of

an improvement over letting a JUDGE decide what diagnosis and treatment DUI

defendents merit.

>

> And no, it is NOT generally " obvious " that any particular person is

alcohol dependent -- really, anyone can make an error in judgement and

obtain a DUI. Most often, it is a one-time thing and neither " treatment "

nor total abstinence is warranted.

>

> ~Rita

Ok, let's cut to brass tacks again. If a professional counselor in

Washington State said, upon evaluation after a criminal conviction for an

alcohol-related crime, " Ms. X (or Ms. Rita), we believe you need to go to a

sobriety support group, " what then? Do you still have a blanket objection to

coerced non-religious sobriety groups for convicted criminals?

Steve

[Guest guest]

:

I drank and drove for two years, on a suspended license (not alcohol

related). I got sober, insured, etc. and was involved in two accidents. I

totaled my truck stoned cold sober.

Jan

[Guest guest]

:

I drank and drove for two years, on a suspended license (not alcohol

related). I got sober, insured, etc. and was involved in two accidents. I

totaled my truck stoned cold sober.

Jan

[Guest guest]

:

I reread. I didn't find it offensive at all.

Mona:

I'm very sorry you lost your son.

Jan

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

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

In a message dated 8/11/01 3:05:18 PM Central Daylight Time,

malgeo@... writes:

<< At 07:51 PM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote:

>, thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's

>admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny

>place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near

>each other, certainly not in the same message.

> I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not

>intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow.

Go back and read it again. I didn't say it in response to her

mentioning her son's death; I said it in response to a later comment.

I'll leave it below so that you can reread it.

>

> > >>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. "

> >

> > I've learned to regard the phrase " alcohol-related " as something of

> > a red flag. It's essentially meaningless.

> >

> > It's also rather disrespectful to your son's memory.

> >

> > >However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He

>drives drunk all

> > >the time, before and since.

> >

> > The world's a funny place. I've driven drunk, and have never had

>an

> > accident. Yet I've been involved in several accidents, including

>one

> > full-blown wreck which landed me in the emergency room, and in

> > none of those accidents had anyone involved consumed any alcohol.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

:

I reread. I didn't find it offensive at all.

Mona:

I'm very sorry you lost your son.

Jan

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

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

In a message dated 8/11/01 3:05:18 PM Central Daylight Time,

malgeo@... writes:

<< At 07:51 PM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote:

>, thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's

>admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny

>place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near

>each other, certainly not in the same message.

> I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not

>intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow.

Go back and read it again. I didn't say it in response to her

mentioning her son's death; I said it in response to a later comment.

I'll leave it below so that you can reread it.

>

> > >>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. "

> >

> > I've learned to regard the phrase " alcohol-related " as something of

> > a red flag. It's essentially meaningless.

> >

> > It's also rather disrespectful to your son's memory.

> >

> > >However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He

>drives drunk all

> > >the time, before and since.

> >

> > The world's a funny place. I've driven drunk, and have never had

>an

> > accident. Yet I've been involved in several accidents, including

>one

> > full-blown wreck which landed me in the emergency room, and in

> > none of those accidents had anyone involved consumed any alcohol.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I think 95% of accidents involve speeding vehicles... I think what

we need to cure our country is speeders anonymous meetings

> > > >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related

fatalities, or 24

> > > >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-

influenced drivers.

> > >

> > >That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a

> > >little high to me, but probably not absurdly so.

> >

> >It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my

bend-over

> >backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the

only person

> >accidents?

> >I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-

related

> >fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10

percent

> >have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver.

> >That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all

fatalities, caused

> >by a drinking driver.

>

> You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> things.

[Guest guest]

I think 95% of accidents involve speeding vehicles... I think what

we need to cure our country is speeders anonymous meetings

> > > >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related

fatalities, or 24

> > > >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-

influenced drivers.

> > >

> > >That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a

> > >little high to me, but probably not absurdly so.

> >

> >It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my

bend-over

> >backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the

only person

> >accidents?

> >I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-

related

> >fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10

percent

> >have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver.

> >That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all

fatalities, caused

> >by a drinking driver.

>

> You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> things.

[Guest guest]

>

> > > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs

than

> > America.

> > > Steve

> >

> > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

>

> As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

> Steve

Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It came

from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

[Guest guest]

>

> > > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs

than

> > America.

> > > Steve

> >

> > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

>

> As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

> Steve

Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It came

from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

[Guest guest]

> > > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

> >

> > As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

> > Steve

>

> Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It came

> from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

Oh, I've been cut to the heart! Slain by such witty repartee.

Stve

[Guest guest]

> > > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

> >

> > As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

> > Steve

>

> Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It came

> from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

Oh, I've been cut to the heart! Slain by such witty repartee.

Stve

[Guest guest]

> > > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

> >

> > As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

> > Steve

>

> Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It came

> from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

Oh, I've been cut to the heart! Slain by such witty repartee.

Stve

[Guest guest]

For all those without a dictionary or a vocabulary that's got to be inferior

to the Big Steve -

xenophobia is a fear of foreigners.

Jan

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

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

In a message dated 8/11/01 9:58:38 PM Central Daylight Time,

steverino63@... writes:

<< > > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than

> America.

> > Steve

>

> What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

Steve

>>

[Guest guest]

For all those without a dictionary or a vocabulary that's got to be inferior

to the Big Steve -

xenophobia is a fear of foreigners.

Jan

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

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

In a message dated 8/11/01 9:58:38 PM Central Daylight Time,

steverino63@... writes:

<< > > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than

> America.

> > Steve

>

> What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

Steve

>>

[Guest guest]

For all those without a dictionary or a vocabulary that's got to be inferior

to the Big Steve -

xenophobia is a fear of foreigners.

Jan

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

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

In a message dated 8/11/01 9:58:38 PM Central Daylight Time,

steverino63@... writes:

<< > > European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than

> America.

> > Steve

>

> What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic propaganda?

Steve

>>

[Guest guest]

cool guy wrote:

> I think 95% of accidents involve speeding vehicles... I think what

> we need to cure our country is speeders anonymous meetings

Coolguy,

Perhaps what we need even more is M.A., Murderers Anonymous and maybe have

the court system mandate group meetings for anyone accused of conspiracy that

denies it, Conspirators Anonymous.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

cool guy wrote:

> I think 95% of accidents involve speeding vehicles... I think what

> we need to cure our country is speeders anonymous meetings

Coolguy,

Perhaps what we need even more is M.A., Murderers Anonymous and maybe have

the court system mandate group meetings for anyone accused of conspiracy that

denies it, Conspirators Anonymous.

Ken Ragge

[Guest guest]

> >It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over

> >backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only

person

> >accidents?

> >I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related

> >fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent

> >have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver.

> >That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities,

caused

> >by a drinking driver.

>

> You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> things.

No, I didn't " forget. " As an alcohol-impaired driver has lowered reaction

times, especially in adverse conditions, most of those items should not be

factored out.

To factor them out, IMO, is giving a drinking driver a " free pass " on

impaired ability to drive.

Almost, as it were, enabling them.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> >It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over

> >backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only

person

> >accidents?

> >I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related

> >fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent

> >have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver.

> >That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities,

caused

> >by a drinking driver.

>

> You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> things.

No, I didn't " forget. " As an alcohol-impaired driver has lowered reaction

times, especially in adverse conditions, most of those items should not be

factored out.

To factor them out, IMO, is giving a drinking driver a " free pass " on

impaired ability to drive.

Almost, as it were, enabling them.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> >It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over

> >backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only

person

> >accidents?

> >I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related

> >fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent

> >have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver.

> >That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities,

caused

> >by a drinking driver.

>

> You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> things.

No, I didn't " forget. " As an alcohol-impaired driver has lowered reaction

times, especially in adverse conditions, most of those items should not be

factored out.

To factor them out, IMO, is giving a drinking driver a " free pass " on

impaired ability to drive.

Almost, as it were, enabling them.

Steve