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 But how much lobbying has LSR done to be the coerced treatment of choice? How much lobbying did LSR do to get into the Texas prison system? I don't know, but I imagine and/or Duaine could speak to that. Are you arguing that people in prison cannot be coerced? If so, that is the ultimately absurdity...they are being about as coerced as it is possible to be. Are you an anarchist Ken? Is anyone who is not an anarchist by definition indistinguishable from XA? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 RE: LSR/SOS, my bias going into a meeting there would be that it *has nothing much to do with AA*. But now you all have me curious and I'd like to see for myself. You can check out the f2f meeting schedule at unhooked.com. We also have nightly meetings online. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > > > 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. > > No, that's not it! That's bullshit. Since we don't have steps, we don't have a " higher power " including the group. We are not AA without god. We are not AA without steps. We are our own program, moving beyond being stuck to the tar-baby of AA. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > > > 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. > > No, that's not it! That's bullshit. Since we don't have steps, we don't have a " higher power " including the group. We are not AA without god. We are not AA without steps. We are our own program, moving beyond being stuck to the tar-baby of AA. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > > > 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. > > No, that's not it! That's bullshit. Since we don't have steps, we don't have a " higher power " including the group. We are not AA without god. We are not AA without steps. We are our own program, moving beyond being stuck to the tar-baby of AA. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > 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? Well, a judge still has the right and I believe the obligation to act on what he or she sees as society's behalf. If that includes making a judgment call as to possible future behavior of the person arrested, that's what haapens. And, as far as a judge knows (not meaning to sound like AA), a person could be in denial, or sound like thy're in denial about having a drug or alcohol problem. That's not always the case, but it sure as hell is at times. And it a judge thinks that person is going to drive drunk or impaired again, that's not nannyism to protect society in the future. > > > >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. Well, it could be both. But that's a lesser point. Most judges don't give a rat's ass about that point of view either, the idea that coerced treatment is punishment, and wouldn't in a " should " situation rather than actual present day circumstances either. > > > > 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... ) Like I said before, sentencing involves (theoretically) rehabilitation as well. Judges have the perfect right to make treatment part of rehabilitation. > > 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. So, you think the drug and alcohol arena deserves special treatment? I'm sure there are burglars, forgers and other criminals who have the exact same bitches about POs as drug and alcohol offenders. If this is what you meant, this gets back to my " people stomping their inner emotional feet. " And, even if drugs were decriminalized, we'd still have DUI-type offenses. Nope, I don't want to see drug/alcohol cases getting any special treatment. > > 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. Sure.. we've talked more about some of his stuff over at LSR... so if you pick something, it would be new for a lot of people over here. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > 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? Well, a judge still has the right and I believe the obligation to act on what he or she sees as society's behalf. If that includes making a judgment call as to possible future behavior of the person arrested, that's what haapens. And, as far as a judge knows (not meaning to sound like AA), a person could be in denial, or sound like thy're in denial about having a drug or alcohol problem. That's not always the case, but it sure as hell is at times. And it a judge thinks that person is going to drive drunk or impaired again, that's not nannyism to protect society in the future. > > > >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. Well, it could be both. But that's a lesser point. Most judges don't give a rat's ass about that point of view either, the idea that coerced treatment is punishment, and wouldn't in a " should " situation rather than actual present day circumstances either. > > > > 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... ) Like I said before, sentencing involves (theoretically) rehabilitation as well. Judges have the perfect right to make treatment part of rehabilitation. > > 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. So, you think the drug and alcohol arena deserves special treatment? I'm sure there are burglars, forgers and other criminals who have the exact same bitches about POs as drug and alcohol offenders. If this is what you meant, this gets back to my " people stomping their inner emotional feet. " And, even if drugs were decriminalized, we'd still have DUI-type offenses. Nope, I don't want to see drug/alcohol cases getting any special treatment. > > 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. Sure.. we've talked more about some of his stuff over at LSR... so if you pick something, it would be new for a lot of people over here. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > > 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? Well, a judge still has the right and I believe the obligation to act on what he or she sees as society's behalf. If that includes making a judgment call as to possible future behavior of the person arrested, that's what haapens. And, as far as a judge knows (not meaning to sound like AA), a person could be in denial, or sound like thy're in denial about having a drug or alcohol problem. That's not always the case, but it sure as hell is at times. And it a judge thinks that person is going to drive drunk or impaired again, that's not nannyism to protect society in the future. > > > >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. Well, it could be both. But that's a lesser point. Most judges don't give a rat's ass about that point of view either, the idea that coerced treatment is punishment, and wouldn't in a " should " situation rather than actual present day circumstances either. > > > > 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... ) Like I said before, sentencing involves (theoretically) rehabilitation as well. Judges have the perfect right to make treatment part of rehabilitation. > > 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. So, you think the drug and alcohol arena deserves special treatment? I'm sure there are burglars, forgers and other criminals who have the exact same bitches about POs as drug and alcohol offenders. If this is what you meant, this gets back to my " people stomping their inner emotional feet. " And, even if drugs were decriminalized, we'd still have DUI-type offenses. Nope, I don't want to see drug/alcohol cases getting any special treatment. > > 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. Sure.. we've talked more about some of his stuff over at LSR... so if you pick something, it would be new for a lot of people over here. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Steve Snyder wrote: > > > 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? > > Well, a judge still has the right and I believe the obligation to act on > what he or she sees as society's behalf. If that includes making a judgment > call as to possible future behavior of the person arrested, that's what > haapens. > And, as far as a judge knows (not meaning to sound like AA), a person could > be in denial, or sound like thy're in denial about having a drug or alcohol > problem. That's not always the case, but it sure as hell is at times. > And it a judge thinks that person is going to drive drunk or impaired again, > that's not nannyism to protect society in the future. Steve, Hate to say this, but you do sound exactly like an AA here. Why don't you tell us " de-nial " isn't a river in Egypt? Anyone in violation of the law or subject to sanction from others, even a wife, friend, etc. is very likely to minimize unapproved behavior. Is a man who in court says, " I only had two drinks " yet when his drinking buddies ask him responds, " I drank so much and got so drunk I lost complete track after about ten drinks " suffering denial? Or is denial just denial that one needs " a support group " in spite of the fact there is no evidence that _any_ of them work? Where is the " protection " against drunk drivers in mandating " treatment " when the only methodologically sound study of such shows those sent to treatment at random are re-arrested for drunk driving more often? Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Steve Snyder wrote: > > > 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? > > Well, a judge still has the right and I believe the obligation to act on > what he or she sees as society's behalf. If that includes making a judgment > call as to possible future behavior of the person arrested, that's what > haapens. > And, as far as a judge knows (not meaning to sound like AA), a person could > be in denial, or sound like thy're in denial about having a drug or alcohol > problem. That's not always the case, but it sure as hell is at times. > And it a judge thinks that person is going to drive drunk or impaired again, > that's not nannyism to protect society in the future. Steve, Hate to say this, but you do sound exactly like an AA here. Why don't you tell us " de-nial " isn't a river in Egypt? Anyone in violation of the law or subject to sanction from others, even a wife, friend, etc. is very likely to minimize unapproved behavior. Is a man who in court says, " I only had two drinks " yet when his drinking buddies ask him responds, " I drank so much and got so drunk I lost complete track after about ten drinks " suffering denial? Or is denial just denial that one needs " a support group " in spite of the fact there is no evidence that _any_ of them work? Where is the " protection " against drunk drivers in mandating " treatment " when the only methodologically sound study of such shows those sent to treatment at random are re-arrested for drunk driving more often? Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Steve Snyder wrote: > > > 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? > > Well, a judge still has the right and I believe the obligation to act on > what he or she sees as society's behalf. If that includes making a judgment > call as to possible future behavior of the person arrested, that's what > haapens. > And, as far as a judge knows (not meaning to sound like AA), a person could > be in denial, or sound like thy're in denial about having a drug or alcohol > problem. That's not always the case, but it sure as hell is at times. > And it a judge thinks that person is going to drive drunk or impaired again, > that's not nannyism to protect society in the future. Steve, Hate to say this, but you do sound exactly like an AA here. Why don't you tell us " de-nial " isn't a river in Egypt? Anyone in violation of the law or subject to sanction from others, even a wife, friend, etc. is very likely to minimize unapproved behavior. Is a man who in court says, " I only had two drinks " yet when his drinking buddies ask him responds, " I drank so much and got so drunk I lost complete track after about ten drinks " suffering denial? Or is denial just denial that one needs " a support group " in spite of the fact there is no evidence that _any_ of them work? Where is the " protection " against drunk drivers in mandating " treatment " when the only methodologically sound study of such shows those sent to treatment at random are re-arrested for drunk driving more often? Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 The point you are not taking in is that judges are not allowed to speculate about whether offenders are "in denial." Judges are simply not qualified to judge that. Why not? They regularly chastise for failure to show remorse. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Whereas sexual harassment in the workplace is deemed wrong, in part because it creates a "hostile work environment," no other workplace behavior (so far as I know) is banned for that reason. Asking someone to take unnecessary medication, imo, falls in the same category. In other words, employers are not allowed to be complete assholes -- they can be total assholes in an area not carved out by the law. As you know, the only reason "hostile environment" sexual harassment is illegal is because of a judicial gloss put on title VII's prohibition of gender discrimination in the workplace. I oppose this judge-made law, and believe its burdens greatly outweigh its benefits. Certainly I would not see it extended to cover every chimera one could contrive in the area of the Asshole Employer. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 > >Steve, > >Hate to say this, but you do sound exactly like an AA here. Why don't you >tell >us " de-nial " isn't a river in Egypt? Anyone in violation of the law or >subject >to sanction from others, even a wife, friend, etc. is very likely to >minimize >unapproved behavior. Is a man who in court says, " I only had two drinks " >yet >when his drinking buddies ask him responds, " I drank so much and got so >drunk I >lost complete track after about ten drinks " suffering denial? Or is denial >just >denial that one needs " a support group " in spite of the fact there is no >evidence that _any_ of them work? > >Where is the " protection " against drunk drivers in mandating " treatment " >when >the only methodologically sound study of such shows those sent to treatment >at >random are re-arrested for drunk driving more often? > >Ken Ragge First of all, anybody has a **choice** to do the time, instead. Second, anybody, if we're going to focus on choice, on a purely behavioral view especially, has a **choice** to not get drunk in the first place. Third, someone convicted for a DUI has an uphill burden of proof in general. Why the hell would a judge be likely to believe such a person's story, especially if the judge had corroborating evidence that the DUI at hand wasn't the only problem. The judge would figure that was " denial, " without the issue of a support group or not entering the issue. I would like to see the study you mention. But, even if it's true.... that's about " treatment " not outside world sobriety groups. And speaking of that, nice slur.... just because I don't agree with you on this issue, and just because your grasp of the legal system and how it works isn't the same as mine.... I must be an AAer. Oh, my what happened to the " erudite " Ken that people longed for less than two weeks ago? Steve _________________________________________________________________ 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 > >Steve, > >Hate to say this, but you do sound exactly like an AA here. Why don't you >tell >us " de-nial " isn't a river in Egypt? Anyone in violation of the law or >subject >to sanction from others, even a wife, friend, etc. is very likely to >minimize >unapproved behavior. Is a man who in court says, " I only had two drinks " >yet >when his drinking buddies ask him responds, " I drank so much and got so >drunk I >lost complete track after about ten drinks " suffering denial? Or is denial >just >denial that one needs " a support group " in spite of the fact there is no >evidence that _any_ of them work? > >Where is the " protection " against drunk drivers in mandating " treatment " >when >the only methodologically sound study of such shows those sent to treatment >at >random are re-arrested for drunk driving more often? > >Ken Ragge First of all, anybody has a **choice** to do the time, instead. Second, anybody, if we're going to focus on choice, on a purely behavioral view especially, has a **choice** to not get drunk in the first place. Third, someone convicted for a DUI has an uphill burden of proof in general. Why the hell would a judge be likely to believe such a person's story, especially if the judge had corroborating evidence that the DUI at hand wasn't the only problem. The judge would figure that was " denial, " without the issue of a support group or not entering the issue. I would like to see the study you mention. But, even if it's true.... that's about " treatment " not outside world sobriety groups. And speaking of that, nice slur.... just because I don't agree with you on this issue, and just because your grasp of the legal system and how it works isn't the same as mine.... I must be an AAer. Oh, my what happened to the " erudite " Ken that people longed for less than two weeks ago? Steve _________________________________________________________________ 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 > > Yes, EXACTLY! And since studies show that only about 1/3 of those >arrested for DUI are " alcoholic " i.e. meet the criteria for alcohol >dependence, it becomes even more clear that " recovery " from alcoholism is >not appropriate or necessary in most DUI cases -- what's needed in >addressing/preventing DUI, is taking responsibility for safe driving, >especially not driving after drinking. > > There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that coerced attendance at > " recovery " groups is effective at preventing DUI. Many DUI's are committed >by people who have been in recovery groups for years. Use of an >ignition-interlock breath device has proven to be I think 3 times more >effective at reducing recidivism rates than ordering people to attend AA. Of course, earlier this week, Pete questioned the " coercion " of breathalyzer ignition locks. Anybody else questioning that? Steve _________________________________________________________________ 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 > > Yes, EXACTLY! And since studies show that only about 1/3 of those >arrested for DUI are " alcoholic " i.e. meet the criteria for alcohol >dependence, it becomes even more clear that " recovery " from alcoholism is >not appropriate or necessary in most DUI cases -- what's needed in >addressing/preventing DUI, is taking responsibility for safe driving, >especially not driving after drinking. > > There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that coerced attendance at > " recovery " groups is effective at preventing DUI. Many DUI's are committed >by people who have been in recovery groups for years. Use of an >ignition-interlock breath device has proven to be I think 3 times more >effective at reducing recidivism rates than ordering people to attend AA. Of course, earlier this week, Pete questioned the " coercion " of breathalyzer ignition locks. Anybody else questioning that? Steve _________________________________________________________________ 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 > > Yes, EXACTLY! And since studies show that only about 1/3 of those >arrested for DUI are " alcoholic " i.e. meet the criteria for alcohol >dependence, it becomes even more clear that " recovery " from alcoholism is >not appropriate or necessary in most DUI cases -- what's needed in >addressing/preventing DUI, is taking responsibility for safe driving, >especially not driving after drinking. > > There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that coerced attendance at > " recovery " groups is effective at preventing DUI. Many DUI's are committed >by people who have been in recovery groups for years. Use of an >ignition-interlock breath device has proven to be I think 3 times more >effective at reducing recidivism rates than ordering people to attend AA. Of course, earlier this week, Pete questioned the " coercion " of breathalyzer ignition locks. Anybody else questioning that? Steve _________________________________________________________________ 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 > > > > 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-- In more words and explanatory detail, exactly what I've been saying. Steve _________________________________________________________________ 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 > > > > 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-- In more words and explanatory detail, exactly what I've been saying. Steve _________________________________________________________________ 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 Steve, You don't know me very well... > > > > That's it. Where the hell is the meeting? I got to see for myself. > > > > > > No, that's not it! That's bullshit. Since we don't have steps, we don't have > a " higher power " including the group. We are not AA without god. We are not > AA without steps. We are our own program, moving beyond being stuck to the > tar-baby of AA. > Steve When I said, " That's it. " it was an expression of exasperation. I just spent time at an AA meeting, my first in over seven years as part of my project for school. The title of my paper is " Powerlessness and the Shift to a Spiritual Worldview In Alcoholics Anonymous. " Before anyone jumps on me about the use of " spiritual " as opposed to " religious, " let me just say that my paper doesn't depend on defining that and instead argues that in either case members become other-directed and the *other* is a spiritual entity. (Actually, I'm hoping to post a link to it when I'm farther along to get input...but it isn't ready yet). When I was in the program, the meeting I attended *was* the " We Agnostics. " All they did was redouble their efforts to coerce a spiritual understanding and half the meeting was taken up with meditation. People *say* they can work the steps as " agnostics " or " athiests. " I remain doubtful (putting it mildly). RE: LSR/SOS, my bias going into a meeting there would be that it *has nothing much to do with AA*. But now you all have me curious and I'd like 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 Steve, You don't know me very well... > > > > That's it. Where the hell is the meeting? I got to see for myself. > > > > > > No, that's not it! That's bullshit. Since we don't have steps, we don't have > a " higher power " including the group. We are not AA without god. We are not > AA without steps. We are our own program, moving beyond being stuck to the > tar-baby of AA. > Steve When I said, " That's it. " it was an expression of exasperation. I just spent time at an AA meeting, my first in over seven years as part of my project for school. The title of my paper is " Powerlessness and the Shift to a Spiritual Worldview In Alcoholics Anonymous. " Before anyone jumps on me about the use of " spiritual " as opposed to " religious, " let me just say that my paper doesn't depend on defining that and instead argues that in either case members become other-directed and the *other* is a spiritual entity. (Actually, I'm hoping to post a link to it when I'm farther along to get input...but it isn't ready yet). When I was in the program, the meeting I attended *was* the " We Agnostics. " All they did was redouble their efforts to coerce a spiritual understanding and half the meeting was taken up with meditation. People *say* they can work the steps as " agnostics " or " athiests. " I remain doubtful (putting it mildly). RE: LSR/SOS, my bias going into a meeting there would be that it *has nothing much to do with AA*. But now you all have me curious and I'd like 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 Steve, You don't know me very well... > > > > That's it. Where the hell is the meeting? I got to see for myself. > > > > > > No, that's not it! That's bullshit. Since we don't have steps, we don't have > a " higher power " including the group. We are not AA without god. We are not > AA without steps. We are our own program, moving beyond being stuck to the > tar-baby of AA. > Steve When I said, " That's it. " it was an expression of exasperation. I just spent time at an AA meeting, my first in over seven years as part of my project for school. The title of my paper is " Powerlessness and the Shift to a Spiritual Worldview In Alcoholics Anonymous. " Before anyone jumps on me about the use of " spiritual " as opposed to " religious, " let me just say that my paper doesn't depend on defining that and instead argues that in either case members become other-directed and the *other* is a spiritual entity. (Actually, I'm hoping to post a link to it when I'm farther along to get input...but it isn't ready yet). When I was in the program, the meeting I attended *was* the " We Agnostics. " All they did was redouble their efforts to coerce a spiritual understanding and half the meeting was taken up with meditation. People *say* they can work the steps as " agnostics " or " athiests. " I remain doubtful (putting it mildly). RE: LSR/SOS, my bias going into a meeting there would be that it *has nothing much to do with AA*. But now you all have me curious and I'd like 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 Steve Snyder wrote: > > > >Steve, > > > >Hate to say this, but you do sound exactly like an AA here. Why don't you > >tell > >us " de-nial " isn't a river in Egypt? Anyone in violation of the law or > >subject > >to sanction from others, even a wife, friend, etc. is very likely to > >minimize > >unapproved behavior. Is a man who in court says, " I only had two drinks " > >yet > >when his drinking buddies ask him responds, " I drank so much and got so > >drunk I > >lost complete track after about ten drinks " suffering denial? Or is denial > >just > >denial that one needs " a support group " in spite of the fact there is no > >evidence that _any_ of them work? > > > >Where is the " protection " against drunk drivers in mandating " treatment " > >when > >the only methodologically sound study of such shows those sent to treatment > >at > >random are re-arrested for drunk driving more often? > > > >Ken Ragge > > First of all, anybody has a **choice** to do the time, instead. Steve, Can't have coercion _without_ choice. > Second, > anybody, if we're going to focus on choice, on a purely behavioral view > especially, has a **choice** to not get drunk in the first place. But it isn't illegal to get drunk. It is illegal to be drunk in public and it is illegal to drive drunk, but it is not illegal to get drunk. > > Third, someone convicted for a DUI has an uphill burden of proof in general. > Why the hell would a judge be likely to believe such a person's story, > especially if the judge had corroborating evidence that the DUI at hand > wasn't the only problem. The judge would figure that was " denial, " without > the issue of a support group or not entering the issue. I would like to see > the study you mention. But, even if it's true.... that's about " treatment " > not outside world sobriety groups. Where did the concept of denial as used in reference to alcoholism and drug addiction come from? Denial of sin is being used as proof of guilt. Your supposition that there is corroborating evidence is just that, a supposition. > > And speaking of that, nice slur.... just because I don't agree with you on > this issue, and just because your grasp of the legal system and how it works > isn't the same as mine.... I must be an AAer. No, because you use the same language and concepts as the AAers do. Even your argument about " choice " is identical to what most Steppers present when confronted with coercion into AA -- " It's okay, they have a choice. " Believe it or not, their are people who believe authority (the government) should be challenged on doing certain things it has the power to do because they are wrong. Just because I have the _power_ to do something does not make it right. That is an extremely authoritarian world view which, again, you seem to share with the Steppers. Ken Ragge > > Oh, my what happened to the " erudite " Ken that people longed for less than > two weeks ago? > > Steve > 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.