Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Hicks wrote: > > > Ken, > > > > Mona, > > > > I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God. > > Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything > even resembling " AA without God. " !!!!!!!! > > Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise > that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have > that, you don't have an XA step group. <---snip---> , What you have is a " We Agnostics " AA group. The group as " Higher Power " is acceptable. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Hicks wrote: > > > Ken, > > > > Mona, > > > > I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God. > > Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything > even resembling " AA without God. " !!!!!!!! > > Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise > that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have > that, you don't have an XA step group. <---snip---> , What you have is a " We Agnostics " AA group. The group as " Higher Power " is acceptable. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Hicks wrote: > > > Ken, > > > > Mona, > > > > I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God. > > Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything > even resembling " AA without God. " !!!!!!!! > > Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise > that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have > that, you don't have an XA step group. <---snip---> , What you have is a " We Agnostics " AA group. The group as " Higher Power " is acceptable. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > " Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this > without the active participation of said free recovery groups?? > > > > It's not active... nobody **has** to sign any slips. > > > Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the > issue -- but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and > the EAP's on people's attendance or lack thereof? > > See above. And tattle is a pejorative word. > No, I understand your issue. IMO, it's that you simply don't like the fact > that a court sentence is not subject to democratic vote. Read > 's post again, or read it the first time if you haven't. > Or to use my even more directl language... the court doesn't give a flying > fuck what you like or don't like when you get sentenced *****for a fricking > crime!***** Hello, you're a criminal at that point. The judge doesn't care > if you'd rather have an orange jumpsuit than a white one. It doesn't care if > you think your parole or probation officer doesn't like you. It doesn't care > if it sentences you to months of community service trash pickup during the > summer and your fair complexion burns easily. > In a DUI, it doesn't give a flying fuck if ***you*** don't think you're > alcoholic either. Especially if it has background evidence to indicate a > present pattern of behavior, or has concerns about a possibly developing > pattern of behavior. It sees a behavior and prounounces sentence. Period. > It does not ask, you, Rita, to like the sentence. It certainly does not > invite you to express your opinion on it. It says, " Guilty. Here's your > sentence. Take this parole or probation, or non-jail sentencing.... or else, > do the time. " > You, the convicted criminal, are not extended a vote on this matter. > The court cares not if you are pounding your emotional feet inside and > saying.... I don't wannna go to..... wherever. As long as the sentence > passes the 1st and 8th Amendments, tough shit. You lost. Period. > > > > The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to > " prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to > be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the > authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of > parole/probation/gov't employment conditions? > > > > What does LSR get out of being part of such a system? > > Again, LSR " gets " nothing.... It's free choice whether to sign such a slip > or not. I, personally, have no problem doing so. Why should I put somebody > in further trouble? True, some court ordered people don't want to be in > recovery rooms... but some DO! > And those who really don't can go to the rooms, get the meeting schedule, > then get bar friends to sign their slips. Happens all the time. > If somebody comes, tho, I'll befriend them. It's for the individual.. I'm > not doing any " dirty work. " Beyond that, this is not some court conspiracy. > Again (and how many times have I said this one too)... the court can > " coerce " appearances at other programs for other problems. > The battering husband can claim " I don't have an anger problem. " The court > says... we don't care what you think, you were arrested for domestic > violence.... go to anger management or do the time. > Again -- period. End of sentence (Or, should I say, beginning of sentence?) > The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't > like the sentence. > Steve yes, this is so true Steve. I know, hubby is doing it as I type... it sucks. But sentencing laws CAN be changed. And I just hope that somehow, some way in the future, judges will get out of the business of assigning the treatment program, and just stick with the punishment in lieu of jail aspects. Recovery should not be a punishment. The fact is, as you have well stated, recovery is punishment. No damn wonder people get their slips signed in bars! lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > " Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this > without the active participation of said free recovery groups?? > > > > It's not active... nobody **has** to sign any slips. > > > Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the > issue -- but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and > the EAP's on people's attendance or lack thereof? > > See above. And tattle is a pejorative word. > No, I understand your issue. IMO, it's that you simply don't like the fact > that a court sentence is not subject to democratic vote. Read > 's post again, or read it the first time if you haven't. > Or to use my even more directl language... the court doesn't give a flying > fuck what you like or don't like when you get sentenced *****for a fricking > crime!***** Hello, you're a criminal at that point. The judge doesn't care > if you'd rather have an orange jumpsuit than a white one. It doesn't care if > you think your parole or probation officer doesn't like you. It doesn't care > if it sentences you to months of community service trash pickup during the > summer and your fair complexion burns easily. > In a DUI, it doesn't give a flying fuck if ***you*** don't think you're > alcoholic either. Especially if it has background evidence to indicate a > present pattern of behavior, or has concerns about a possibly developing > pattern of behavior. It sees a behavior and prounounces sentence. Period. > It does not ask, you, Rita, to like the sentence. It certainly does not > invite you to express your opinion on it. It says, " Guilty. Here's your > sentence. Take this parole or probation, or non-jail sentencing.... or else, > do the time. " > You, the convicted criminal, are not extended a vote on this matter. > The court cares not if you are pounding your emotional feet inside and > saying.... I don't wannna go to..... wherever. As long as the sentence > passes the 1st and 8th Amendments, tough shit. You lost. Period. > > > > The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to > " prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to > be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the > authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of > parole/probation/gov't employment conditions? > > > > What does LSR get out of being part of such a system? > > Again, LSR " gets " nothing.... It's free choice whether to sign such a slip > or not. I, personally, have no problem doing so. Why should I put somebody > in further trouble? True, some court ordered people don't want to be in > recovery rooms... but some DO! > And those who really don't can go to the rooms, get the meeting schedule, > then get bar friends to sign their slips. Happens all the time. > If somebody comes, tho, I'll befriend them. It's for the individual.. I'm > not doing any " dirty work. " Beyond that, this is not some court conspiracy. > Again (and how many times have I said this one too)... the court can > " coerce " appearances at other programs for other problems. > The battering husband can claim " I don't have an anger problem. " The court > says... we don't care what you think, you were arrested for domestic > violence.... go to anger management or do the time. > Again -- period. End of sentence (Or, should I say, beginning of sentence?) > The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't > like the sentence. > Steve yes, this is so true Steve. I know, hubby is doing it as I type... it sucks. But sentencing laws CAN be changed. And I just hope that somehow, some way in the future, judges will get out of the business of assigning the treatment program, and just stick with the punishment in lieu of jail aspects. Recovery should not be a punishment. The fact is, as you have well stated, recovery is punishment. No damn wonder people get their slips signed in bars! lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > " Using " free recovery groups?? How could the government do this > without the active participation of said free recovery groups?? > > > > It's not active... nobody **has** to sign any slips. > > > Perhaps you misunderstand my question -- or perhaps you avoid the > issue -- but the question is, why does LSR agree to tattle to the courts and > the EAP's on people's attendance or lack thereof? > > See above. And tattle is a pejorative word. > No, I understand your issue. IMO, it's that you simply don't like the fact > that a court sentence is not subject to democratic vote. Read > 's post again, or read it the first time if you haven't. > Or to use my even more directl language... the court doesn't give a flying > fuck what you like or don't like when you get sentenced *****for a fricking > crime!***** Hello, you're a criminal at that point. The judge doesn't care > if you'd rather have an orange jumpsuit than a white one. It doesn't care if > you think your parole or probation officer doesn't like you. It doesn't care > if it sentences you to months of community service trash pickup during the > summer and your fair complexion burns easily. > In a DUI, it doesn't give a flying fuck if ***you*** don't think you're > alcoholic either. Especially if it has background evidence to indicate a > present pattern of behavior, or has concerns about a possibly developing > pattern of behavior. It sees a behavior and prounounces sentence. Period. > It does not ask, you, Rita, to like the sentence. It certainly does not > invite you to express your opinion on it. It says, " Guilty. Here's your > sentence. Take this parole or probation, or non-jail sentencing.... or else, > do the time. " > You, the convicted criminal, are not extended a vote on this matter. > The court cares not if you are pounding your emotional feet inside and > saying.... I don't wannna go to..... wherever. As long as the sentence > passes the 1st and 8th Amendments, tough shit. You lost. Period. > > > > The courts and authorities can TRY to require attendance and slips to > " prove " it, but they can't require LSR to sign these slips. So why agree to > be unpaid enforcers of the court's decree in this way? Why not let the > authorities do their own dirty work in re enforcement of > parole/probation/gov't employment conditions? > > > > What does LSR get out of being part of such a system? > > Again, LSR " gets " nothing.... It's free choice whether to sign such a slip > or not. I, personally, have no problem doing so. Why should I put somebody > in further trouble? True, some court ordered people don't want to be in > recovery rooms... but some DO! > And those who really don't can go to the rooms, get the meeting schedule, > then get bar friends to sign their slips. Happens all the time. > If somebody comes, tho, I'll befriend them. It's for the individual.. I'm > not doing any " dirty work. " Beyond that, this is not some court conspiracy. > Again (and how many times have I said this one too)... the court can > " coerce " appearances at other programs for other problems. > The battering husband can claim " I don't have an anger problem. " The court > says... we don't care what you think, you were arrested for domestic > violence.... go to anger management or do the time. > Again -- period. End of sentence (Or, should I say, beginning of sentence?) > The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you don't > like the sentence. > Steve yes, this is so true Steve. I know, hubby is doing it as I type... it sucks. But sentencing laws CAN be changed. And I just hope that somehow, some way in the future, judges will get out of the business of assigning the treatment program, and just stick with the punishment in lieu of jail aspects. Recovery should not be a punishment. The fact is, as you have well stated, recovery is punishment. No damn wonder people get their slips signed in bars! lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > > > Ken, > > > > > > Mona, > > > > > > I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God. > > > > Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything > > even resembling " AA without God. " !!!!!!!! > > > > Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise > > that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have > > that, you don't have an XA step group. > > <---snip---> > > , > > What you have is a " We Agnostics " AA group. The group as " Higher Power " is > acceptable. > > Ken That's it. Where the hell is the meeting? I got to see for myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > > > Ken, > > > > > > Mona, > > > > > > I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God. > > > > Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything > > even resembling " AA without God. " !!!!!!!! > > > > Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise > > that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have > > that, you don't have an XA step group. > > <---snip---> > > , > > What you have is a " We Agnostics " AA group. The group as " Higher Power " is > acceptable. > > Ken That's it. Where the hell is the meeting? I got to see for myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > > > Ken, > > > > > > Mona, > > > > > > I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God. > > > > Ken, *I* am very curious how you think that there could be anything > > even resembling " AA without God. " !!!!!!!! > > > > Giving your will over to the HP, aka GOD, is the fundamental premise > > that AA and what all the step groups are based on. If you don't have > > that, you don't have an XA step group. > > <---snip---> > > , > > What you have is a " We Agnostics " AA group. The group as " Higher Power " is > acceptable. > > Ken That's it. Where the hell is the meeting? I got to see for myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > >Okay, Okay, Okay... I think we GET it. Okay? We get the damn SEMANTICS of > >the way it IS vs. the way it SHOULD or COULD be. > > I think more people are getting it... still not sure that nearly everybody > is. Not sure about that at all. Sorry about the caps... just got frustrated... > > > >CAN we agree that it SUCKS that the court IS creative in it's setencing? > >And CAN we agree that the way it IS is not the way it may always BE? That > >the way it might OUGHT to be is the way it may actually someday BE? > > > > > That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather > > > than paid counselors. > > > Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to > >professional > > > counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail. > > > >And here is where I, personally, would like to see this thread take a soft > >turn and perhaps talk about the FACT that judges are PUNISHING people > >through coercion to attend recovery groups! If they can and do coerce > >people > >as they damn well please as a way to keep non-violent criminals (assuming > >no > >DUI person killed anyone) out of the clink it sounds to me like they are > >forcing group therapy and calling it punishment. If it's punishment, it > >ain't recovery and I don't know what the damn judge thinks he's > >accomplishing there. > > Looking at the " should, " if a judge (without using the word " alcoholic, " > believes the person in a DUI may continue this behavior without treatment of > some sort, including possibly killing someone with the next DUI... on behalf > of society, that judge should " coerce " some sort of recovery. > > I don't agree on your should... but that's okay. I suppose if a DUI offender agreed to go to recovery (called deferred prosecution here) and was allowed to make a choice on that recovery (regardless of what type of recovery) and that person say, submitted to random UA's and a breathalizer in any vehicle they were legally allowed to drive in, then I'd say that the judge " should " be able to agree with that or toss the offender in jail for the crime of driving under the influence. But I don't think a person should be forced. What good does it do to force? I agree with Trimpey here... it's not about the drinking folks... it's about the driving while incapacitated. Dumb choice, got caught, circumstances should be taking away the driving privilges, not tossing someone into the treatment gristmill. blech. barf. puke. bristle. And I suppose one could argue that the person could and they do, still drive, regardless of license revokation. But guess what, people still drink when forced into recovery. So I guess I think the punishment should fit the crime and then take it from there. > > > Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases. > > > They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is > >legal > > > and applicable. Period. > > > >It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an > >alcoholic > >(as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking treatment!!!!!!!!!!! > > To the degree that rehabilitation as well as punishment is part of the > correctional system, yes, it may well be that it's the place of a judge to > make such a call. Again, I still see that forced treatment by a judge is punishment, not treatment. > > > > One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery > >gr= > > > oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in > > > self-rec= > > > overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and > >personal > > > c= > > > ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > People can engage in self-recovery even if being " coerced " to a recovery > group. They aren't mutually exclusive. LSR and SOS do not mandate a certain > way to recover. And even if it were AA... you could ignore most of what they > say. But that isn't the point really, is it? Fake it til you make it? What is the point of that? People are not going to get their shit together until they want to get their shit together. The " crime " is DUI... punish the crime... don't punish the cause of the crime... (hmmm.. not sure that reads as I mean... but am getting tired... ) > As far as judges being " dictated " by PO's, to the degree that happens, that > is again not restricted just to drug or alcohol related offenses. True. But my problem is with XA-Nazi PO's like my husband's. If someone is on parole or probation for a violent crime, they are lucky to get out early, and I agree with you and Mona and the conditions of probation and parole in that arena. But I don't agree in the drug and alcohol arena. > Wanna pay for more judges? Wanna pay for all this professional treatment, > either with your tax dollars, or as additional sentencing if you're the > convict? I don't have a choice now do I? Hell, we had a Washington State Representative propose during the last session that Washington State be accorded " UNLIMITED " funds for treatment. Made me wanna move to Canada. Hell no I don't want to pay for more judges... and fuck no I don't want to pay for treatment. But I don't have a direct choice. Indirectly I can vote.. and I do vote... but these poor politician don't know jack about what's going on in the treatment industry, AA, or our courts. It's all about the poor helpless victims of that disease called addiction. " Treatment Works " (trumpets please) . " Help those who still suffer " . (Violins please) Screw em. (DeWalt please) I don't give a rip about someone who choses to fuck up their own lives. When they commit a real crime, then punish the crime. When they get stoned or drunk... that's their problem. > Again, these issues are not just restricted to drug and alcohol offenses. True, but on this set of postings, those are the issues I want to air out. > > >Have you all done your homework assignment and read Whites Essay yet? (tsk > >tsk) Let's please talk about that... > > > Yes, I've read White. Well, what did you think? Maybe I'm naive... I dunno. Perhaps I should grease the skids a bit and pick out a particular paragraph of interest and paste to a post so we can have something to chew on. Thanks for the discussion! Keeps me primed! lisakl > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > >Okay, Okay, Okay... I think we GET it. Okay? We get the damn SEMANTICS of > >the way it IS vs. the way it SHOULD or COULD be. > > I think more people are getting it... still not sure that nearly everybody > is. Not sure about that at all. Sorry about the caps... just got frustrated... > > > >CAN we agree that it SUCKS that the court IS creative in it's setencing? > >And CAN we agree that the way it IS is not the way it may always BE? That > >the way it might OUGHT to be is the way it may actually someday BE? > > > > > That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather > > > than paid counselors. > > > Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to > >professional > > > counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail. > > > >And here is where I, personally, would like to see this thread take a soft > >turn and perhaps talk about the FACT that judges are PUNISHING people > >through coercion to attend recovery groups! If they can and do coerce > >people > >as they damn well please as a way to keep non-violent criminals (assuming > >no > >DUI person killed anyone) out of the clink it sounds to me like they are > >forcing group therapy and calling it punishment. If it's punishment, it > >ain't recovery and I don't know what the damn judge thinks he's > >accomplishing there. > > Looking at the " should, " if a judge (without using the word " alcoholic, " > believes the person in a DUI may continue this behavior without treatment of > some sort, including possibly killing someone with the next DUI... on behalf > of society, that judge should " coerce " some sort of recovery. > > I don't agree on your should... but that's okay. I suppose if a DUI offender agreed to go to recovery (called deferred prosecution here) and was allowed to make a choice on that recovery (regardless of what type of recovery) and that person say, submitted to random UA's and a breathalizer in any vehicle they were legally allowed to drive in, then I'd say that the judge " should " be able to agree with that or toss the offender in jail for the crime of driving under the influence. But I don't think a person should be forced. What good does it do to force? I agree with Trimpey here... it's not about the drinking folks... it's about the driving while incapacitated. Dumb choice, got caught, circumstances should be taking away the driving privilges, not tossing someone into the treatment gristmill. blech. barf. puke. bristle. And I suppose one could argue that the person could and they do, still drive, regardless of license revokation. But guess what, people still drink when forced into recovery. So I guess I think the punishment should fit the crime and then take it from there. > > > Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases. > > > They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is > >legal > > > and applicable. Period. > > > >It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an > >alcoholic > >(as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking treatment!!!!!!!!!!! > > To the degree that rehabilitation as well as punishment is part of the > correctional system, yes, it may well be that it's the place of a judge to > make such a call. Again, I still see that forced treatment by a judge is punishment, not treatment. > > > > One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery > >gr= > > > oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in > > > self-rec= > > > overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and > >personal > > > c= > > > ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > People can engage in self-recovery even if being " coerced " to a recovery > group. They aren't mutually exclusive. LSR and SOS do not mandate a certain > way to recover. And even if it were AA... you could ignore most of what they > say. But that isn't the point really, is it? Fake it til you make it? What is the point of that? People are not going to get their shit together until they want to get their shit together. The " crime " is DUI... punish the crime... don't punish the cause of the crime... (hmmm.. not sure that reads as I mean... but am getting tired... ) > As far as judges being " dictated " by PO's, to the degree that happens, that > is again not restricted just to drug or alcohol related offenses. True. But my problem is with XA-Nazi PO's like my husband's. If someone is on parole or probation for a violent crime, they are lucky to get out early, and I agree with you and Mona and the conditions of probation and parole in that arena. But I don't agree in the drug and alcohol arena. > Wanna pay for more judges? Wanna pay for all this professional treatment, > either with your tax dollars, or as additional sentencing if you're the > convict? I don't have a choice now do I? Hell, we had a Washington State Representative propose during the last session that Washington State be accorded " UNLIMITED " funds for treatment. Made me wanna move to Canada. Hell no I don't want to pay for more judges... and fuck no I don't want to pay for treatment. But I don't have a direct choice. Indirectly I can vote.. and I do vote... but these poor politician don't know jack about what's going on in the treatment industry, AA, or our courts. It's all about the poor helpless victims of that disease called addiction. " Treatment Works " (trumpets please) . " Help those who still suffer " . (Violins please) Screw em. (DeWalt please) I don't give a rip about someone who choses to fuck up their own lives. When they commit a real crime, then punish the crime. When they get stoned or drunk... that's their problem. > Again, these issues are not just restricted to drug and alcohol offenses. True, but on this set of postings, those are the issues I want to air out. > > >Have you all done your homework assignment and read Whites Essay yet? (tsk > >tsk) Let's please talk about that... > > > Yes, I've read White. Well, what did you think? Maybe I'm naive... I dunno. Perhaps I should grease the skids a bit and pick out a particular paragraph of interest and paste to a post so we can have something to chew on. Thanks for the discussion! Keeps me primed! lisakl > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > >Okay, Okay, Okay... I think we GET it. Okay? We get the damn SEMANTICS of > >the way it IS vs. the way it SHOULD or COULD be. > > I think more people are getting it... still not sure that nearly everybody > is. Not sure about that at all. Sorry about the caps... just got frustrated... > > > >CAN we agree that it SUCKS that the court IS creative in it's setencing? > >And CAN we agree that the way it IS is not the way it may always BE? That > >the way it might OUGHT to be is the way it may actually someday BE? > > > > > That includes the court system using free recovery support groups rather > > > than paid counselors. > > > Unless, as part of fine-related sentencing, it says, you go to > >professional > > > counseling and YOU pay the counselor, or else go to jail. > > > >And here is where I, personally, would like to see this thread take a soft > >turn and perhaps talk about the FACT that judges are PUNISHING people > >through coercion to attend recovery groups! If they can and do coerce > >people > >as they damn well please as a way to keep non-violent criminals (assuming > >no > >DUI person killed anyone) out of the clink it sounds to me like they are > >forcing group therapy and calling it punishment. If it's punishment, it > >ain't recovery and I don't know what the damn judge thinks he's > >accomplishing there. > > Looking at the " should, " if a judge (without using the word " alcoholic, " > believes the person in a DUI may continue this behavior without treatment of > some sort, including possibly killing someone with the next DUI... on behalf > of society, that judge should " coerce " some sort of recovery. > > I don't agree on your should... but that's okay. I suppose if a DUI offender agreed to go to recovery (called deferred prosecution here) and was allowed to make a choice on that recovery (regardless of what type of recovery) and that person say, submitted to random UA's and a breathalizer in any vehicle they were legally allowed to drive in, then I'd say that the judge " should " be able to agree with that or toss the offender in jail for the crime of driving under the influence. But I don't think a person should be forced. What good does it do to force? I agree with Trimpey here... it's not about the drinking folks... it's about the driving while incapacitated. Dumb choice, got caught, circumstances should be taking away the driving privilges, not tossing someone into the treatment gristmill. blech. barf. puke. bristle. And I suppose one could argue that the person could and they do, still drive, regardless of license revokation. But guess what, people still drink when forced into recovery. So I guess I think the punishment should fit the crime and then take it from there. > > > Courts use unpaid anger management programs for domestic violence cases. > > > They have **every** business sentencing how they damn well think is > >legal > > > and applicable. Period. > > > >It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an > >alcoholic > >(as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking treatment!!!!!!!!!!! > > To the degree that rehabilitation as well as punishment is part of the > correctional system, yes, it may well be that it's the place of a judge to > make such a call. Again, I still see that forced treatment by a judge is punishment, not treatment. > > > > One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery > >gr= > > > oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in > > > self-rec= > > > overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and > >personal > > > c= > > > ommitment is " incorrect " sobriety. > > People can engage in self-recovery even if being " coerced " to a recovery > group. They aren't mutually exclusive. LSR and SOS do not mandate a certain > way to recover. And even if it were AA... you could ignore most of what they > say. But that isn't the point really, is it? Fake it til you make it? What is the point of that? People are not going to get their shit together until they want to get their shit together. The " crime " is DUI... punish the crime... don't punish the cause of the crime... (hmmm.. not sure that reads as I mean... but am getting tired... ) > As far as judges being " dictated " by PO's, to the degree that happens, that > is again not restricted just to drug or alcohol related offenses. True. But my problem is with XA-Nazi PO's like my husband's. If someone is on parole or probation for a violent crime, they are lucky to get out early, and I agree with you and Mona and the conditions of probation and parole in that arena. But I don't agree in the drug and alcohol arena. > Wanna pay for more judges? Wanna pay for all this professional treatment, > either with your tax dollars, or as additional sentencing if you're the > convict? I don't have a choice now do I? Hell, we had a Washington State Representative propose during the last session that Washington State be accorded " UNLIMITED " funds for treatment. Made me wanna move to Canada. Hell no I don't want to pay for more judges... and fuck no I don't want to pay for treatment. But I don't have a direct choice. Indirectly I can vote.. and I do vote... but these poor politician don't know jack about what's going on in the treatment industry, AA, or our courts. It's all about the poor helpless victims of that disease called addiction. " Treatment Works " (trumpets please) . " Help those who still suffer " . (Violins please) Screw em. (DeWalt please) I don't give a rip about someone who choses to fuck up their own lives. When they commit a real crime, then punish the crime. When they get stoned or drunk... that's their problem. > Again, these issues are not just restricted to drug and alcohol offenses. True, but on this set of postings, those are the issues I want to air out. > > >Have you all done your homework assignment and read Whites Essay yet? (tsk > >tsk) Let's please talk about that... > > > Yes, I've read White. Well, what did you think? Maybe I'm naive... I dunno. Perhaps I should grease the skids a bit and pick out a particular paragraph of interest and paste to a post so we can have something to chew on. Thanks for the discussion! Keeps me primed! lisakl > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > << The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you > don't > like the sentence. > Steve >> > > Nobody said anything about " inner-child whining " ; nobody said anything about > letting anyone, convicted of anything, choose their own sentence. We are > talking about an alcohol-related crime, and how far a judge may (or may not) > go in sentencing that person to meetings, religious or otherwise. Also > whether or not, at some future time, changes may be made in sentencing > guidelines that allow the state to require abstinence for any length of time. > Is this an accurate assessment of the discussion? > > -SamBeeJ > Yes, that is it in a nutshell and you did it much better than I! I am verbose... to my detriment I'm afraid. lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > << The court doesn't care about any fricking inner-child whining that you > don't > like the sentence. > Steve >> > > Nobody said anything about " inner-child whining " ; nobody said anything about > letting anyone, convicted of anything, choose their own sentence. We are > talking about an alcohol-related crime, and how far a judge may (or may not) > go in sentencing that person to meetings, religious or otherwise. Also > whether or not, at some future time, changes may be made in sentencing > guidelines that allow the state to require abstinence for any length of time. > Is this an accurate assessment of the discussion? > > -SamBeeJ > Yes, that is it in a nutshell and you did it much better than I! I am verbose... to my detriment I'm afraid. lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > Hi Rita, > > > > But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to > become or t= > > o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved > with LS= > > R? > > This brings up the whole group vs non-group issue. I understand your > point about coersion, but I can see also that a person might want to > be in a group that provided support, without that becoming an > overriding belief system. Well put. It is another issue, but very worthy of discussion. > > Actually, I can relate to people wanting to extend their social input > to meet the same goals that they are choosing. When I first joined > this list, I was trying to find the same thing before figuring out > that I didn't need to. But, I still might in the future. > > The issue for me on this thread goes back to this being the > 12-step-free list. LSR is definitely an alternative. It may have its > own problems and issues, but it is not 12-step. > > > This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly > the rig= > > ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but > coerced i= > > nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, > whether or = > > not it is true. > > I see this as a separate issue. Because the state is coercing > citizens to one group or the other does not necessarily mean that they > have that much in common or that either group desires that people be > coerced into attending them. > > I have been reading a fascinating history of AA by Dick B., who > believes that the only way AA will survive is if the coersion ends and > AA rekindles its ties to God and Christianity and drops all the HP > " nonsense. " I never thought I'd agree with an AA, but in this case I > do. And this guy has done his homework. If they did that, and stuck > to that, I would have no problem with them whatsoever. It sure has > ballooned beyond that, however. hey, now there is an idea! I agree with this AA idea very much.... I support that one, oh yeah little doggie! I'd like to read this too... any way you can point me there? > > > > An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much > discussion of is= > > WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or > agents of = > > the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or > probati= > > on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such > counseli= > > ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the > state -- = > > and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any > abusive or = > > unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no > business ca= > > rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders. > > > > ~Rita > > Rita, even that would be an assault in your case. They do it because > it is the easy way and is convenient. Judges do it (in WA anyways) because it is legislated as the sentencing guidelines. Where did these come from? Drug and Alcohol Committees set up by the gov't, treatment industry lobbyists, and ignorant politicians. I've been ragging on the judges a but much, they really do need to stay within certain guidelines that are legislated to them and judges didn't create drug courts... I can see where judges get caught up in all the chaos. It takes us little people to stand up and pay lawyers lots of dough to challenge those legislative codes and laws and sentences. >That might be why AA got so > many cases coerced to them in the first place, because they are there > and they are " free. " That doesn't explain to me why the TX centers > also coerce there...or does it? Hmmm, I'll be thinking on this one > awhile. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > Hi Rita, > > > > But you must still believe you need LSR itself in order to > become or t= > > o stay sober. For what other reason would one choose to be involved > with LS= > > R? > > This brings up the whole group vs non-group issue. I understand your > point about coersion, but I can see also that a person might want to > be in a group that provided support, without that becoming an > overriding belief system. Well put. It is another issue, but very worthy of discussion. > > Actually, I can relate to people wanting to extend their social input > to meet the same goals that they are choosing. When I first joined > this list, I was trying to find the same thing before figuring out > that I didn't need to. But, I still might in the future. > > The issue for me on this thread goes back to this being the > 12-step-free list. LSR is definitely an alternative. It may have its > own problems and issues, but it is not 12-step. > > > This is indeed analogous to AA. And as with AA, it is certainly > the rig= > > ht of any citizen to seek support in any way he/she desires -- but > coerced i= > > nvolvement DEMANDS that the person pretend to need such support, > whether or = > > not it is true. > > I see this as a separate issue. Because the state is coercing > citizens to one group or the other does not necessarily mean that they > have that much in common or that either group desires that people be > coerced into attending them. > > I have been reading a fascinating history of AA by Dick B., who > believes that the only way AA will survive is if the coersion ends and > AA rekindles its ties to God and Christianity and drops all the HP > " nonsense. " I never thought I'd agree with an AA, but in this case I > do. And this guy has done his homework. If they did that, and stuck > to that, I would have no problem with them whatsoever. It sure has > ballooned beyond that, however. hey, now there is an idea! I agree with this AA idea very much.... I support that one, oh yeah little doggie! I'd like to read this too... any way you can point me there? > > > > An entire other issue which I haven't (yet) seen much > discussion of is= > > WHY LSR members would want to function as agents of the court or > agents of = > > the government. Seems to me that if your position is that parole or > probati= > > on conditions can include mandated " recovery " counseling, that such > counseli= > > ng ought to be provided by credentialled professionals paid by the > state -- = > > and such persons would of course be subject to sanctions for any > abusive or = > > unprofessional behavior. Unpaid, lay-led support groups have no > business ca= > > rrying out court sentences or parole (or EAP) orders. > > > > ~Rita > > Rita, even that would be an assault in your case. They do it because > it is the easy way and is convenient. Judges do it (in WA anyways) because it is legislated as the sentencing guidelines. Where did these come from? Drug and Alcohol Committees set up by the gov't, treatment industry lobbyists, and ignorant politicians. I've been ragging on the judges a but much, they really do need to stay within certain guidelines that are legislated to them and judges didn't create drug courts... I can see where judges get caught up in all the chaos. It takes us little people to stand up and pay lawyers lots of dough to challenge those legislative codes and laws and sentences. >That might be why AA got so > many cases coerced to them in the first place, because they are there > and they are " free. " That doesn't explain to me why the TX centers > also coerce there...or does it? Hmmm, I'll be thinking on this one > awhile. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 (sigh) -- but what if "your own way to stay sober" is to do it WITHOUT= attending recovery groups? Then do that. No one in LSR cares if you do, and you will be wished well. One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery gr= oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in self-rec= overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal c= ommitment is "incorrect" sobriety. That is not a major legal justidication for opposing it. It is a political one. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 (sigh) -- but what if "your own way to stay sober" is to do it WITHOUT= attending recovery groups? Then do that. No one in LSR cares if you do, and you will be wished well. One major justification for opposing coerced attendance at recovery gr= oups is that it results in people being PROHIBITED from engaging in self-rec= overy -- in other words, abstinence via personal recognizance and personal c= ommitment is "incorrect" sobriety. That is not a major legal justidication for opposing it. It is a political one. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Attending a GROUP is relying on others..... thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... (as is so well stated in the White Essay off of "unhooked.com" that I want everyone to read for homework tonite as there WILL be a test tomorrow... Last April we tried to get Bill White to attend an online chat, which he graciously agreed to do. Unfortunately, freakin yahoo did not cooperate and the man could not get into the chatroom. Ditto when we invited Jack TRimpey, who made a yeoman's effort to storm the cyber-barricades. We have a new chat provider now, and later in the fall will be trying again to recruit guest speakers. I'd like to see Bill White, and Jack Trimpey, invited to try again. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Attending a GROUP is relying on others..... thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... (as is so well stated in the White Essay off of "unhooked.com" that I want everyone to read for homework tonite as there WILL be a test tomorrow... Last April we tried to get Bill White to attend an online chat, which he graciously agreed to do. Unfortunately, freakin yahoo did not cooperate and the man could not get into the chatroom. Ditto when we invited Jack TRimpey, who made a yeoman's effort to storm the cyber-barricades. We have a new chat provider now, and later in the fall will be trying again to recruit guest speakers. I'd like to see Bill White, and Jack Trimpey, invited to try again. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 I do not believe that employers can require unnecessary medical treatment as a condition of employment -- I believe there have been lawsuits over requiring plastic surgery, etc. in some professions where the employer wants a certain "look". These lawsuits were brought under Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment. They were claimed to constitute discrimination on the basis of gender. An employer may not discriminate against "protected classes." But he can otherwise be an asshole. And obviously no employer can require employees to take unnecessary medication or engage in general in any medical or psychiatric treatment at the employer's whim. So why then is it acceptable for an employer to require employees to state that they are "alcoholic" with the "disease" of alcoholism, and require them to engage in what is commonly thought of as a form of treatment for that "disease", if the employee does not have such a "disease"? I'm not sure an employer could not require a person to take unnecessary medication. It is outrageous, but not all things outrageous are illegal. After all, they can test your pee anytime they want. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 I do not believe that employers can require unnecessary medical treatment as a condition of employment -- I believe there have been lawsuits over requiring plastic surgery, etc. in some professions where the employer wants a certain "look". These lawsuits were brought under Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment. They were claimed to constitute discrimination on the basis of gender. An employer may not discriminate against "protected classes." But he can otherwise be an asshole. And obviously no employer can require employees to take unnecessary medication or engage in general in any medical or psychiatric treatment at the employer's whim. So why then is it acceptable for an employer to require employees to state that they are "alcoholic" with the "disease" of alcoholism, and require them to engage in what is commonly thought of as a form of treatment for that "disease", if the employee does not have such a "disease"? I'm not sure an employer could not require a person to take unnecessary medication. It is outrageous, but not all things outrageous are illegal. After all, they can test your pee anytime they want. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 I do not believe that employers can require unnecessary medical treatment as a condition of employment -- I believe there have been lawsuits over requiring plastic surgery, etc. in some professions where the employer wants a certain "look". These lawsuits were brought under Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment. They were claimed to constitute discrimination on the basis of gender. An employer may not discriminate against "protected classes." But he can otherwise be an asshole. And obviously no employer can require employees to take unnecessary medication or engage in general in any medical or psychiatric treatment at the employer's whim. So why then is it acceptable for an employer to require employees to state that they are "alcoholic" with the "disease" of alcoholism, and require them to engage in what is commonly thought of as a form of treatment for that "disease", if the employee does not have such a "disease"? I'm not sure an employer could not require a person to take unnecessary medication. It is outrageous, but not all things outrageous are illegal. After all, they can test your pee anytime they want. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 What you have is a "We Agnostics" AA group. The group as "Higher Power" is acceptable. Ken, have you taken note of the name of this egoup list? Hmmm? By freakin definition, a group that is "free" of the steps in both form and substance is not AA. Duh. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 What you have is a "We Agnostics" AA group. The group as "Higher Power" is acceptable. Ken, have you taken note of the name of this egoup list? Hmmm? By freakin definition, a group that is "free" of the steps in both form and substance is not AA. Duh. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.