You be the judge

Winky said:
Two glasses of wine every night seven days a week?
Click to expand...

Sure, if it doesn't cause problems I don't see it as a problem. However I have heard this classified as alcoholic before. Shit when I was working in London most of the office would hit the pub after work for a few or more than a few everyday after work.

Not that we haven't done that in offices I've worked at here but not daily.

They could be in a technical manner. One does not need to be 'out of control' to be an alcoholic, there is a dependence factor involved in the assessment. but if doesn't present a problem why worry about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, the definition you gave seems reasonable and this wouldn't qualify.

Also some hard core alcoholics might only drink every few weeks, three days at a time.
Click to expand...

I could see that. Go for weeks and then wreck yourself and do something real embarrassing or get in trouble on many of the occasions and it's a problem.
 
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN (Reuters) - Most Bruneians want husbands who cheat on their wives to be whipped, according to a recent survey in the Muslim-majority country.


The survey, conducted by website brudirect (www.brudirect.com), found 76 percent of 272 respondents said men should be whipped for having affairs while only 55 percent said unfaithful wives should receive the same punishment.

"The result of the survey is an indication of the pent-up feelings that women harbor against irresponsible men," an unnamed social worker from Brunei was quoted as saying on the website.

The oil-rich state of Brunei, located on Borneo Island, has a population of almost 400,000 of which 66 percent are Muslim.
Click to expand...

source
 
Winky said:
Two glasses of wine every night seven days a week?
Click to expand...

For the sake of debate take it further even. if someone has a couple drinks and smoked some weed every night to get to bed how would it be different then someone who drinks coffee in the morning, does a little meth, and takes some Ambien to get to sleep?

Assuming no negative consequences I know.
 
spike said:
For the sake of debate take it further even. if someone has a couple drinks and smoked some weed every night to get to bed how would it be different then someone who drinks coffee in the morning, does a little meth, and takes some Ambien to get to sleep?

Assuming no negative consequences I know.
Click to expand...

I guess the big difference is that you can't crash your bed into a car with 5 people in it.

If they're not putting anyone else at risk (or making our taxes pay for liver transplants, stomach pumping, or blood transfusions or any other issues related to heavy drug usage), then whatever, who cares what they do?
 
Assuming no negative consequences would be silly.
Either of those people would fall squarely into the
worthless drug addict category and under current laws
would also be criminals.
 
Concerning the guy and the accident, the reason why many sentences for drunk driving accidents seem lenient, even ones including a vehicular homicide charge, is primarily, because we are for the most part a nation made of of Christians and "christians", and this makes us believers in redemption, which is a good thing in my opinion. Alcoholism is a disease and the alcoholic is not responsible for having it. That said, the alcoholic should in no way be excused for his negative actions and criminal acts, and should be held accountable for that. It should also be understood that in a society where drinking is celebrated like our own, alcoholism is a mitigating factor. We all know (those of us who have partaken in alcoholic festivities), that even in non alcoholics, alcohol reduces and impairs the ability to make responsible decisions, and therefore we should be a bit more understanding in such cases. If the guy did this stone cold sober but just speeding because he had no consideration for others, in my opinion that a far more heinous crime.

I would recommend a long term treatment facility no less than one year and up to a two year inpatient facility. None of this 28 day crap. Longer treatments are proven more effective and in such cases is important. Some time in jail, no less than thirty days and no more than one year, as a drunk is most likely not a hardened criminal and prison is too much in this case. If sentencing is a longer term, a minimum or medium security prison at worst. As my links to the actual studies show shorter sentences and longer probation periods are much more effective at curbing recidivism which in my mind is key. Also some sort of community service in perhaps a local ER so that the offender gets to see the real life victims of such irresponsibility. License should be revoked perhaps for a 2-5 year period, but not for life. How do you expect the poor bastard to get to work and earn a living and the money to pay back into the system the costs of his treatment and incarceration, which should be that last part of his sentence?

A little common sense in the penal system is sorely lacking. If my ideas don't seem harsh enough to you, in my opinion, you are either a believer in the revenge system which only exacerbates the crime problem in America, or just pain ignorant of the facts of what is effective, and sorely lacking in empathy for your fellow man. May god bless you with an experience to help you see the light!
 
randomJACKASS said:
How dod you expect the poor bastard to get to work and earn a living and the money to pay back into the system the costs of his treatment and incarceration, which should be that last part of his sentence.
Click to expand...

Over here..we call it BMW - bus, metro (subway), walk.
 
Buddy was driving a 1999 BMW 540 in Canada's largest and most metropolitan city.

Rural, eh. I suppose that a bike or walking would be too much to ask. Hell, he can always take a small scenic detour to the cemetary and check out the gravestones.

Boofuckin'-hoo
 
I just don't think it rises to that level Bish. Driving is necessary for most folks. a 1-2 year suspension is more than enough to send a message loud and clear. Perhaps a 5 year, but forever revocations are just ridiculous in my oinion, but if that guy EVER gets any ticket and blows positive for even a .01, then yes, permanent revocation!

Oh and the probation should be no less than ten years. If the guy is caught consuming ANY alcohol in that period, then revoke his license and make him do all or part of a suspended 10 year sentence attached to the probation period. That guy has forfeited his right to drink in my opinion! In fact perhaps that should be on his license too, so if he ever goes to a bar he will be carded and it is a crime to serve him any alcoholic beverage for LIFE! That make it any better to you Bish?
 
Oh, and on this other case when I said the parenting should be investigated. I never said bad parenting should be punishable as a crime, but crimes committed by parents should. Girls who were abused in the home are much more susceptible to abusers. Even if the parents were not guilty of crimes against the children perhaps they should be asked to do some parenting classes because save for in the case of teen alcohol and drug abuse it isn't at all "normal" or at least healthy for a girl to have such poor judgment and boundaries. Something is at least mildly amiss in those girl's home lives, I have zero doubt of it!
 
randomJACKASS said:
I just don't think it rises to that level Bish. Driving is necessary for most folks. a 1-2 year suspension is more than enough to send a message loud and clear. Perhaps a 5 year, but forever revocations are just ridiculous in my oinion, but if that guy EVER gets any ticket and blows positive for even a .01, then yes, permanent revocation!

Oh and the probation should be no less than ten years. If the guy is caught consuming ANY alcohol in that period, then revoke his license and make him do all or part of a suspended 10 year sentence attached to the probation period. That guy has forfeited his right to drink in my opinion! In fact perhaps that should be on his license too, so if he ever goes to a bar he will be carded and it is a crime to serve him any alcoholic beverage for LIFE! That make it any better to you Bish?
Click to expand...
There's always alternatives... a former co-worker who'd lost his license for a DWI hitched a ride with a co-worker for 9 months. Ride-sharing is troublesome, but hardly impossible. Regular DWI - sure, a set period of time w/no license is still weak. DWI causing death... sorry.

If you knew how many times I've heard of people arrested for DWI for the 10th, 20th, 30th time and finally getting some jail time or losing their license AFTER they kill someone, you'd understand.

A drunk is often only dangerous to himself until s/he gets behind the wheel. Banning the drink means that s/he'll just hide the drinking. Taking the license away means that people will be unlikely to lend their car to him, he won't be able to buy a new one at any dealership..and the moment he tries to register one..red flags will go up.

You can't pull that off with booze...you don't need to flash a license to buy booze (unless you look under 18).

Far too easy to hide drinking to make a ban on abuse of that term feasible.
 
You could always just cut the fucker's right foot off. That would put an end to spontaneous driving on his part in a hurry.
 
Remind me to tell you about the last time I fucked up my right knee and had to drive myself to the hospital left footed. Not easy..but doable.
 
Doable drunk? Unlikely.

And when am I supposed to remind you about this? You've been promising a beer since last year. Hell, even being owed money hasn't shifted you.
 
MrBishop said:
.....If you knew how many times I've heard of people arrested for DWI for the 10th, 20th, 30th time and finally getting some jail time or losing their license AFTER they kill someone, you'd understand....
Click to expand...

Kind of a silly assumption considering who you're talking to don't you think? (hardcore AA and NA member who attends meetings regularly and a background in CDC training, because i have known of a lot of cases that leave me scratching my head)

I understand but I still don't agree. I am all for harsher punishments regarding treatment, probation, and suspended time, but this thing about a license, now I am a bit flexible on harsher but not so much on permanently so. I think a first offense, even in the case of a vehicular homicide should not result in permanent loss of licenses. I do think that everyone should be carded when buying alcohol, and perhaps those whose right to buy alcohol is suspended or revoked should have fluorescent orange licenses? Seriously though perhaps any repeat DUI offender should have his license to purchase alcohol revoked or suspended like that. Perhaps a second time DUI offender of any kind should lose a license permanently, or perhaps just for a long time (10 years?). My main point is that to take it away permanently is gonna take a lot of the offender's hope away and probably won't stop them from driving illegally anyway. Taking their right to drink or buy alcohol by making special licenses and making carding mandatory regardless of age would be a lot more effective at stopping them in my opinion. The real truth is neither solution would stop them from driving illegally or getting someone to buy alcohol for them, but it may have a preventative effect overall.
 
Former coworker got a DUI and lost his license years ago. Last I heard he's still driving a scooter five or six miles to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top