Fw: Re: Denial, judges (was: New here)

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: "Denial", judges (was: New here)

okay, I'm on thin ice here, but oh welll.... I don't believe your father is in denial. I don't know him so I'd need a few more particulars here, but on the face of it, and if he's like the many I know who insist that their "pleasures" are not the cause of their problems I'd say that he's taking everyone for a nice ride. And he gets to be "in denial". And if his family and friends want to put up with it and let it slide and allow him to be an asshole then call it what it is. It's not denial. It's a snotty, bratty, selfish, "I've gotten away with it this long why should I change my tune" asshole. He totally knows he is not holding up his end of life's responsibility as a husband, father, son, brother, uncle, employee, employer, citizen. He totally knows that he likes to get snot faced drunk. He totally knows that he will continue to do so. He is totally tired of people telling him what an asshole he is. He totally hates people "ruining his high". I'm sorry, but I don't buy the denial thing. Not at all. Not mentally, emotionally, legally, ethically, or any-ol'-"ally". Well, maybe mentally. let me expand....

So, on my premise above, as it relates to your father, so too does it relate to judges passing judgement on people who perform crimes while intoxicated. Punish the crime. Who the hell cares if the person is in denial? And in denial about what? That alcohol is causing problems? If a person REALLY can't figure that out, then I believe the insanity plea is the one to cop and the judge perhaps then should request a psych-eval?!? Maybe.

lisak

BUT, this is not the same thing as a judge presented with an accused who is on his third alcohol-related offense. For this accused to continue to insist he has no problem with alcohol, constitutes a refusal to admit the truth or reality of his situation, i.e., it is denial. Just because the term "denial" has been coopted and misused by XA and the treatment industry, does not mean no one ever is in denial of an alcohol problem. I assure you, my father is in denial, and that fact has made the lives of everyone in our family quite miserable, indeed. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: " Denial " , judges (was: New here)

>

>

> > About the driver, how am I not surprised about the positive THC

> > test results! I think pot effects different people in various ways,

> > just as alcohol or any other mind altering substance does, and those

> > that say pot doesn't make you a worse driver are full of it (in

> > probably 99% of the cases anyway, but there could be some

> > exceptions). The guy sounds like a nut; I'd sooner blame him than

> > pot, of course.

> > I am not sure about your feelings on this... it is my opinion

> > that DUI laws are similar to drug laws,

>

> Actually, at least in WA, in " DUI " , the Influence means influence of

> ANYTHING that can impair your driving, including over the counter cold and

> flu medicine (note that little warning that says " may cause drowsiness " ,

or

> " excitability " , or " do not operate machinary " .... ) can you imagine? " Hi,

> my name is and I'm a theraflu-a-holic " . shesh! They'll do

anything

> to make a buck in the treatment industry.

> lisak

>

> >that they are not needed and

> > do not help the " problem " . So I don't think it matters if the

> > driver was under the influence of any drug. I believe the driver

> > should be punished for what he did, for his actions that caused harm

> > to another human being's property or person and shouldn't be given

> > extra punishment because he was influenced by a drug, nor should he

> > be let off in any way because of it. But it is a far from perfect

> > world.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: " Denial " , judges (was: New here)

>

>

> >

> > I apologize for not making myself clear -- I didn't mean that

> " denial " is a medical/psychiatric disorder, I meant that " alcoholism " i.e.

> alcohol dependence (or even the lesser " alcohol abuse " ) is a clinical

> disorder. So when a judge says someone is " in denial " in stating he/she

is

> not an alcoholic, the judge is making an implied diagnosis of " alcoholism "

> that he is not qualified to make and does not have sufficient information

to

> make.

> >

> > 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.

>

>

> Rita- Problem with these " professional " assessments is, the questions are

> based on the premise that alcoholism is a disease. Therefore, you are

born

> with it. Therefore, medical, historical etc. sources can damn you to

> treatment even with " just one " DUI. By all accounts, you can need

treatment

> without ever having touched alcohol. But that is extreme, of course. I

can

> say that I have a piece of paper sitting next to me where the judge told

my

> husband he must attend SPII-Intensive In-Patient Treatment as an

alternative

> to jail when that assessment was never made by an alcohol counseler. In

> fact my husband went to a non-12step place and had an assessment done

(later

> on) whereby the only thing that ended up a " Y " (yes) on the " have you

> ever...? " questions was " have you ever been arrested for DUI " . The answer

> was Yes... and guess what? Hubby was recommended to 2 year outpatient

> program. Even though he's been sobor for a year solid, and drinking was

so

> light as to barely qualify as " moderate " for 2 years before that.

>

>

> >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.

>

> This is so rare anymore. MADD mom's are in the courtrooms monitoring the

> judges sentencing. AND, we have the nifty little " deferred prosecution "

(of

> which everyone gets one " get out of jail for DUI " per lifetime). Talk

about

> bait and switch. First time DUI person is allowed to not go to jail (oh

> yeah, where do I sign your honor?) as long as they " admit they are an

> alcoholic with the disease of alcoholism " and do a 2 year program, report

to

> probation and attend AA! Oh boy! Oh yeah! They are now officially " in

the

> system " forever. And oh by the way, if you say fuck you I'll do my jail

> time... you will NEVER get your driver's license back unless you get

> assessed by a state approved treatment facility and follow their treatment

> plan and graduate from said plan... They've got you coming, going, being

> born and dying around here.

>

>

> >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.

>

> Again, it would seem on the surface to be so Rita, but alas, this is

> generally a treatment industry state.

>

> >

> > 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.

>

>

> Therein lies the saddest stories of all. lisak

>

>

> >

> > ~Rita

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: " Denial " , judges (was: New here)

>

>

> > About the driver, how am I not surprised about the positive THC

> > test results! I think pot effects different people in various ways,

> > just as alcohol or any other mind altering substance does, and those

> > that say pot doesn't make you a worse driver are full of it (in

> > probably 99% of the cases anyway, but there could be some

> > exceptions). The guy sounds like a nut; I'd sooner blame him than

> > pot, of course.

> > I am not sure about your feelings on this... it is my opinion

> > that DUI laws are similar to drug laws,

>

> Actually, at least in WA, in " DUI " , the Influence means influence of

> ANYTHING that can impair your driving, including over the counter cold and

> flu medicine (note that little warning that says " may cause drowsiness " ,

or

> " excitability " , or " do not operate machinary " .... ) can you imagine? " Hi,

> my name is and I'm a theraflu-a-holic " . shesh! They'll do

anything

> to make a buck in the treatment industry.

> lisak

>

> >that they are not needed and

> > do not help the " problem " . So I don't think it matters if the

> > driver was under the influence of any drug. I believe the driver

> > should be punished for what he did, for his actions that caused harm

> > to another human being's property or person and shouldn't be given

> > extra punishment because he was influenced by a drug, nor should he

> > be let off in any way because of it. But it is a far from perfect

> > world.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >