Unconstitutional A.A.

[Quickie]

On your first point, maybe alcohol is the medium but many alcoholics don't use other illegal drugs. If they were truly addicted to anything that provides similar sensations, they would/might be more interested in trying other substances.

On your second point, sometimes the person's thought processes cause them to make bad decisions constantly because they no longer maintain any objectivity.

I know someone (not well, just through having done some A/V work at a local bar/restaurant) who got his second DUI recently. He lives across the street from this place and until recently, would come in early on Sunday mornings to clean. When he was sentenced, he was required to have an ignition interlock (blown into), an ankle bracelet and he wasn't allowed to drink for 24 days. Guess who was back at the bar immediately after being allowed to leave the house? One of the first times he went back to the bar, he reamed one of the bartenders so badly that she was shaking and crying. The guy can't make a good decision to save his life- after asking several people if he should co-sign a car loan, he did it anyway. He started a fire in a dumpster when he lit a firework and it went inside, he has been involved in several minor altercations and he damaged his new car within days of driving it off the lot. He hit his garage last week and tore a hole in the door, too. He blames everyone for his problems and when he asked me to look at the security camera DVR after setting the dumpster on fire, he was very sheepish and acted like he was the biggest POS on the planet but he never said anything about being sorry.

He's not uncommon here, either. We have far too many people who drive after revocation/prison/Huber/multiple DUI offenses. He needed to be forced to see that he's not in control of his life and that means he WILL do something bad again. Hopefully, nobody else will be hurt or killed.

They are "professional victims". From my experience with a couple people like this, (one who just got her 3rd DUI), the excuses that I have gotten from her are just disgusting. She also was right back in the bar, after being bailed out from her last hit and run/DUI. She is awaiting sentencing now. Hopefully she will get time this time (she has never gone to jail) and she will go to counseling/treatment as is being recommend.

Her "trigger" she claims was her father dying. Funny though, he was alive for her first 2 DUI's. I tried reaching out to her but her "real" friends are buying her drinks at the bars and she is posting this on her Facebook page.

She is a genuinely nice person when sober. In all the time I have known her, the majority of us meeting or bumping into each other, she was under the influence. Mainly alcohol, but I suspect there are other habits mixed in.

She will unfortunately end up dead.

 

[Kaa]

My personal view is that the first time you get popped for a DUI, you should lose the car you were operating for a month. No impound fees, just no car. (No matter whose car you may be driving.) Second offense, car gets seized and sold at auction, all proceeds going to a fund for survivors/victims of DUI drivers.

People can drive on suspended licenses, but only if they have a car.

 

[cassanova]

On your first point, maybe alcohol is the medium but many alcoholics don't use other illegal drugs. If they were truly addicted to anything that provides similar sensations, they would/might be more interested in trying other substances.

Many, if not most, actually do just that, but you don't have to do that to be an addict.

On your second point, sometimes the person's thought processes cause them to make bad decisions constantly because they no longer maintain any objectivity.

I know someone (not well, just through having done some A/V work at a local bar/restaurant) who got his second DUI recently. He lives across the street from this place and until recently, would come in early on Sunday mornings to clean. When he was sentenced, he was required to have an ignition interlock (blown into), an ankle bracelet and he wasn't allowed to drink for 24 days. Guess who was back at the bar immediately after being allowed to leave the house?

That's largely what makes addiction what it is, engaging in the use and behaviors regardless of the negative ramifications that come with it. Unless he's taught techniques on how to resist those urges, he'll just keep continuing the behavior again. Even after being taught the skills to remain sober, he's still got to want to not drink.

None of what you listed is going to "cure" his addiction. You can incarcerate him for 20 years and though he'll be sober for 20 years, he'll still hit the bar when he gets out, because nothing was done to help change his mindset. Yeah, he was punished, but that's not teaching them what they need to do to battle their addiction.

Those that truly want to stop, they listen to what they were taught and do their best to recall it when they're triggered. Granted, every addict has a slip or two, but those become less frequent and they eventually go years without one and have continued success with their recovery.

 

[Quickie]

My personal view is that the first time you get popped for a DUI, you should lose the car you were operating for a month. No impound fees, just no car. (No matter whose car you may be driving.) Second offense, car gets seized and sold at auction, all proceeds going to a fund for survivors/victims of DUI drivers.

People can drive on suspended licenses, but only if they have a car.

I agree in part. If say for instance I loaned my car to someone and they went to a bar without my knowledge, then got a DUI, I don't think I should have my car impounded.

 

[L-A]

My personal view is that the first time you get popped for a DUI, you should lose the car you were operating for a month. No impound fees, just no car. (No matter whose car you may be driving.) Second offense, car gets seized and sold at auction, all proceeds going to a fund for survivors/victims of DUI drivers.

People can drive on suspended licenses, but only if they have a car.

There are countries where it's like this. I'm afraid that there is a cultural issue to having something like this in the US.

 

[Quickie]

Those that truly want to stop, they listen to what they were taught and do their best to recall it when they're triggered. Granted, every addict has a slip or two, but those become less frequent and they eventually go years without one and have continued success with their recovery.

Like my smoking addiction. I had quit for 6 years, then recently started up again in a social situation......who am I kidding? I smoke daily now.

There are countries where it's like this. I'm afraid that there is a cultural issue to having something like this in the US.

Possibly. More likely, it's against their "rights".

 

[PSPookie]

Another non-flame question:

Are AA meetings private in that attendees are not discussed outside of the meeting? It is not as formal as the lawyer-client / doctor-patient / clergy-lay arrangement, obviously. If you had gone to his meeting (and subsequently his church, with all documentation required, of course), would you have been the topic of the Thursday afternoon Women's Bible Study?

Yes AA meetings are private in the way you describe. There are 2 types of meetings open and closed. Open meetings are open to anyone who can conduct themselves respectfully and abide by the conditions of anonymity. Closed meetings are just for members.

At each meeting, the steps and traditions are read. One of the traditions is anonymity. To sum up the policy: it's ok for me to say I was here but it's not ok for me to say I saw you here.

I hope that answers the question.

 

[Quickie]

Yes AA meetings are private in the way you describe. There are 2 types of meetings open and closed. Open meetings are open to anyone who can conduct themselves respectfully and abide by the conditions of anonymity. Closed meetings are just for members.

At each meeting, the steps and traditions are read. One of the traditions is anonymity. To sum up the policy: it's ok for me to say I was here but it's not ok for me to say I saw you here.

I hope that answers the question.

So these meetings are primarily for talking/support, not a medical treatment in any way?

 

[PSPookie]

So these meeting are primarily for talking/support, not a medicinal treatment in any way?

They are no more or less medicinal than traditional talk therapy with a psychiatrist and are used much the same way.

AA meting = (group therapy session @ treatment center) - (cost of therapy)

Aside from the copay, the two are indistinguishable.

 

[Kaa]

I agree in part. If say for instance I loaned my car to someone and they went to a bar without my knowledge, then got a DUI, I don't think I should have my car impounded.

If it was an actual law, then you would be an "informed lender of car" so wouldn't you be responsible for deciding to whom you lent the vehicle?

"Hey man, can I borrow your car?"

"Where's yours?"

"Got snagged by the cops for a DUI, so I lost it."

"No, I think not."

 

[Quickie]

They are no more or less medicinal than traditional talk therapy with a psychiatrist and are used much the same way.

AA meting = (group therapy session @ treatment center) - (cost of therapy)

Aside from the copay, the two are indistinguishable.

Except of course, for the medical licenses, training and degrees that a Therapist/Psychiatrist has.

If it was an actual law, then you would be an "informed lender of car" so wouldn't you be responsible for deciding to whom you lent the vehicle?

"Hey man, can I borrow your car?"

"Where's yours?"

"Got snagged by the cops for a DUI, so I lost it."

"No, I think not."

People lie. Addicts lie. Again, my vehicle should not be impounded if I did not have any knowledge.

 

[Chebass88]

If it was an actual law, then you would be an "informed lender of car" so wouldn't you be responsible for deciding to whom you lent the vehicle?

"Hey man, can I borrow your car?"

"Where's yours?"

"Got snagged by the cops for a DUI, so I lost it."

"No, I think not."

This borders on ridiculous. If you have that conversation prior to lending, sure, it makes sense. And a DUI might not be a dyed-in-the-wool alcoholic, with multiple prior DUI. It could be your good buddy who had **ONE** beer too many, but was legally above the BAC limit. Is this the same as the woman referenced in the above post (repeat offender, etc.)? I'd say not, though their actions are the same - driving under the influence. There is no way to determine this a priori, unless you know the person is apt to earn a DUI & loss of your vehicle.

 

[Chebass88]

Yes AA meetings are private in the way you describe. There are 2 types of meetings open and closed. Open meetings are open to anyone who can conduct themselves respectfully and abide by the conditions of anonymity. Closed meetings are just for members.

At each meeting, the steps and traditions are read. One of the traditions is anonymity. To sum up the policy: it's ok for me to say I was here but it's not ok for me to say I saw you here.

I hope that answers the question.

Thanks!

 

[GypsyMan]

There's always the alternative (Jail-Time)

 

[Kaa]

This borders on ridiculous. If you have that conversation prior to lending, sure, it makes sense. And a DUI might not be a dyed-in-the-wool alcoholic, with multiple prior DUI. It could be your good buddy who had **ONE** beer too many, but was legally above the BAC limit. Is this the same as the woman referenced in the above post (repeat offender, etc.)? I'd say not, though their actions are the same - driving under the influence. There is no way to determine this a priori, unless you know the person is apt to earn a DUI & loss of your vehicle.

Wouldn't it be very simple to just not lend your car? As to the scenario that it's your good buddy, and he got popped for a DUI, if he's your "good budy" wouldn't he make sure he didn't ingest anything so not to put your car at risk? I'll assume the person is a rational adult, who's responsible enough to make the DECISION whether to ingest anything that may get himself or your car into trouble.

MY basic beleief is: noone is under the influence until they DECIDE to do whatever it is that causes them to become under the influence. They are sober/straight when they make the decision to not be.

 

[Kaa]

I'll amend the above to not include addicted persons, since that's being debated above. Let's just say it's a non-addicted person.

 

[Chebass88]

I'll amend the above to not include addicted persons, since that's being debated above. Let's just say it's a non-addicted person.

Even the addicted person makes a decision to ingest more. The desire for alcohol simply outweighs the consequences.

 

[PSPookie]

Except of course, for the medical licenses, training and degrees that a Therapist/Psychiatrist has.

Right. The recovered addict without a medical degree is about a hundred times more qualified than the "expert" who has not been through it.

AA membership is quite diverse and some members are even medical professionals

BTW, self help groups such as AA are recognized by the AMA as legitimate therapy for alcoholism/substance abuse.

 

[Quickie]

Even the addicted person makes a decision to ingest more. The desire for alcohol simply outweighs the consequences.

Compulsive obsessive behavior. Very sad indeed.

 

[Quickie]

Right. The recovered addict without a medical degree is about a hundred times more qualified than the "expert" who has not been through it.

AA membership is quite diverse and some members are even medical professionals

BTW, self help groups such as AA are recognized by the AMA as legitimate therapy for alcoholism/substance abuse.

My point was/is that professional therapy is not the same as a AA group therapy as you stated.

AA meting = (group therapy session @ treatment center) - (cost of therapy)

Aside from the copay, the two are indistinguishable.