A rational approach to depression, addiction, etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

ALL states have a legal thing called "Driving While Impaired", which is different than "Driving While Intoxicated". If you are weaving, or have an accident, and you have whatever BAC that state has decided is "impaired" you will get a ticket, and possibly go to jail.

---

What state has a .06 as impaired?

Quote:

---

I was pissed at being forced to see a therapist who was not qualified for the job. He lost his license and was fired from here for his actions and for not being qualified at the level the state requires. Hmmm, do I have a reason for thinking the state hires the cheapest therapists they can get?

---

Maybe you should have been pissed at yourself for driving while impaired, instead of being pissed at the police or your state.

Quote:

---

No, I am saying that those who want/need therapy are the ones who should be able to get it, regardless of their financial situation. FFS, the rest of us have paid those therapists enough for them to have a "charity" program that waives the fee for someone who really does need help.

---

So you DO think therapy or counseling is a valid form of treatment. You're just whining about who makes the appointment, or who pays? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

I am also saying, that by "inventing" addictions like Facebook addiction, therapists don't have the time to take care of those who really want/need therapy. Can't you see that? If the therapist is in session with someone with a fake addiction, the person who was raped can't get an appointment! Ok, maybe that example is extreme, but Jesus Christ, anything short of that doesn't seem to get your attention. If a therapists time is completely taken up by fake addictions, he can't possibly schedule an appointment with a victim who needs help. Of course, maybe that victim is broke and can't afford him anyway! :mad:

---

Do you really believe mental health professionals are turning away people who've been cited for driving drunk, so they can keep appointments with Farmville or Facebook addictions?

Do you really believe that therapists are filling their time with "fake addictions" and can't see rape victims?

Then you wonder why we say you're making shit up?

Munchkin,

you're right in that a therapist who's busy talking to someone about a "fake" addiction can't at the same time treat someone for a "real" problem.

However, the "real" problems vastly outnumber the "fake" problems. Most therapists in the US aren't busy treating people for farmville addiction, because there aren't all that many farmville addicts out there seeking help right now.

Even if there were, farmville addiction is pretty easy to treat. It wouldn't take them very long :o

Stop being so rational, Aimless. You may be interfering with The Force. Or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

Khen I get my idea of that from a simple place.

In 2005, I went to the state Police Academy when they were training new officers.* I was poured 1 BV/coke, drank it in the space of about 20 minutes, and about 30 minutes later, was given a breathalyzer test. I blew a .08! That is legally too drunk to drive in all states!

---

You do realize that BAC stands for BLOOD Alcohol Concentration?

Not Breath Alcohol Concentration?

Maybe we should give it up. munchkin seems convinced that science is a bunch of hoo haw conspiracy from Big Brother.

Thank you, Aimless! Finally someone got that point thru their head!

Yes Khen, I know what BAC stands for. I also know that most people convicted of DUI are convicted on the results of the breathalyzer, with NO blood test being done!

GGT, I have never said all science is bad. In fact, I don't recall ever saying anything about science being bad at all. I do object to law enforcement twisting science to suit their agendas. Yes, I know you don't think they would ever do that! Oh no...all cops and judges are perfect and never have to try to cover their ass, or commit a crime. Oh wait...wasn't that a PA judge just on the news for serious charges involving juvenile lock-ups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

Thank you, Aimless! Finally someone got that point thru their head!

---

Er, I get the feeling you didn't read the whole post :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

Yes Khen, I know what BAC stands for. I also know that most people convicted of DUI are convicted on the results of the breathalyzer, with NO blood test being done!

---

Any halfway competent lawyer will prevent a conviction solely based on breathalyzers. That's why over here, if the police actually wants to convict someone, they have to do a blood test.

For instance, diabetics often suffer from hypoglycemia. Which in turn causes your breath to contain high amounts of acetone due to ketoacidosis. Which in turn makes the breathalyzer detect "alcohol" even though there isn't any.

Since you are diabetic, I dare say that your example above of "one drink" leading to a "BAC" of 0.8 is simply that: a combination of the alcohol plus your diabetes.

Do you not inform yourself about the side effects of your condition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Any halfway competent lawyer will prevent a conviction solely based on breathalyzers. That's why over here, if the police actually wants to convict someone, they have to do a blood test.

For instance, diabetics often suffer from hypoglycemia. Which in turn causes your breath to contain high amounts of acetone due to ketoacidosis. Which in turn makes the breathalyzer detect "alcohol" even though there isn't any.

Since you are diabetic, I dare say that your example above of "one drink" leading to a "BAC" of 0.8 is simply that: a combination of the alcohol plus your diabetes.

Do you not inform yourself about the side effects of your condition?

---

For some odd reason, courts here prosecute and convict a lot of people based on a portable breathalyzer test. There have been a few cases of the defense winning an acquittal based on the portables not being accurate. If you want a blood test, you have to specifically request one, and even then, if it shows less than the breathalyzer, a prosecutor will argue the results of the breathalyzer should be used instead. Yes, I know it's kind of messed up, but there you have it!

At the time of the "one drink" episode, I was not diabetic! This was a number of years ago, back when I was healthier than I am now.

I am learning the side effects of my condition. There is a lot to take in, and I am still trying to learn everything. Right now, I wouldn't try driving anyway, due to the different meds I am on. Plus, there are times my blood sugar is low, causing me to feel shaky and weak and faint. I sure wouldn't want to be driving when this happens. Hell, I'd probably have a wreck, possibly injuring other people. Oh yeah, I wouldn't be prosecuted tho, since "medical conditions" tends to be a valid "excuse" for crashing into people and things!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

For some odd reason, courts here prosecute and convict a lot of people based on a portable breathalyzer test. There have been a few cases of the defense winning an acquittal based on the portables not being accurate. If you want a blood test, you have to specifically request one, and even then, if it shows less than the breathalyzer, a prosecutor will argue the results of the breathalyzer should be used instead. Yes, I know it's kind of messed up, but there you have it!

---

Riiight. Sorry, but I severely doubt that a Breathalyzer result will be used when an actual blood test is available. And if it is indeed used, fire your lawyer.

Quote:

---

At the time of the "one drink" episode, I was not diabetic! This was a number of years ago, back when I was healthier than I am now.

---

Then you must have weighed 25 Kilograms only. Other than that, it's not humanly possible to get a BAC of 0.8 with one drink alone. To put that weight into perspective: For a woman of 1.50 meters, that would be a life threatening weight.

Quote:

---

I am learning the side effects of my condition. There is a lot to take in, and I am still trying to learn everything. Right now, I wouldn't try driving anyway, due to the different meds I am on. Plus, there are times my blood sugar is low, causing me to feel shaky and weak and faint. I sure wouldn't want to be driving when this happens. Hell, I'd probably have a wreck, possibly injuring other people. Oh yeah, I wouldn't be prosecuted tho, since "medical conditions" tends to be a valid "excuse" for crashing into people and things!

---

Actually, no. If you know about your condition, then you will be prosecuted. Side effects from diabetes are preventable, thus any and all crashes will be your responsibility. Just like a DUI.
For example, if you are an (active) epileptic, you're not allowed to drive a car. If you know about your epilepsy and drive regardless, you'll face up to two years of jail time in Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Riiight. Sorry, but I severely doubt that a Breathalyzer result will be used when an actual blood test is available. And if it is indeed used, fire your lawyer.

---

Not everyone can afford a decent lawyer, and iirc it's been established on these forums at least that in many cases and in many parts of the US breathalyzer tests are used in this summat sloppy way. I'm not saying Munchkin preaches the gospel truth, but I think we should remember that people in the US--and esp. its cops and lawyers and judges--are batshit insane, and I don't think we can hold anyone here responsible for their national madness.

Quote:

---

Then you must have weighed 25 Kilograms only. Other than that, it's not humanly possible to get a BAC of 0.8 with one drink alone. To put that weight into perspective: For a woman of 1.50 meters, that would be a life threatening weight.

---

What units are we using for these 0.8s and 0.08s? Percent? Promille? What's the body composition? What's the person's ethnicity? What time interval? It's all a jumble :cry: but I think it's reasonable to assume that Munchkin isn't deliberately lying and so there must be some piece of information we're missing that's preventing us from figuring what really happened at that demonstration. Maybe there's a misunderstanding somewhere, who knows.

Quote:

---

Actually, no. If you know about your condition, then you will be prosecuted. Side effects from diabetes are preventable, thus any and all crashes will be your responsibility. Just like a DUI.

---

This is absolutely insane. Many diabetics have problems with hypoglycemia through no fault of their own, at least not by any reasonable standards. Diabetics are allowed to drive, just not anything more dangerous than a regular car. There are a lot of Type I diabetics out there and a lot of car crashes. If every single diabetic who has a crash gets slammed for "driving while impaired" then that'd be a fucking travesty.

If the rules are different in Germany, fine, but we should keep in mind that different countries have different laws and that one country's insane rules may not hold in another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What units are we using for these 0.8s and 0.08s? Percent? Promille? What's the body composition? What's the person's ethnicity? What time interval? It's all a jumble :cry: but I think it's reasonable to assume that Munchkin isn't deliberately lying and so there must be some piece of information we're missing that's preventing us from figuring what really happened at that demonstration. Maybe there's a misunderstanding somewhere, who knows.

---

Promille is the usual size for BAC. And, Aimless, the only real function for the BAC is weight. The rest will only nibble at the edges. Maybe you'll need to kilograms more or less to reach a BAC of 0.8 with one drink.

Doesn't change the fact that you'll need to be a life-threatened anorexic to do so. Ethnicity doesn't play a role either since it determines only the speed of alcohol breakdown, if at all.

Quote:

---

This is absolutely insane. Many diabetics have problems with hypoglycemia through no fault of their own, at least not by any reasonable standards. Diabetics are allowed to drive, just not anything more dangerous than a regular car. There are a lot of Type I diabetics out there and a lot of car crashes. If every single diabetic who has a crash gets slammed for "driving while impaired" then that'd be a fucking travesty.

If the rules are different in Germany, fine, but we should keep in mind that different countries have different laws and that one country's insane rules may not hold in another.

---

The law specifically states: If you're driving a car while being impared and you know about it, you'll face punishment. Honestly, if your condition is such that you cannot be expected to drive safely, then you have no business driving a car. None.

And "nothing more dangerous than a car"? Yes, a car plowing into a throng of people is sooooo harmless. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Promille is the usual size for BAC. And, Aimless, the only real function for the BAC is weight. The rest will only nibble at the edges. Maybe you'll need to kilograms more or less to reach a BAC of 0.8 with one drink.

---

Actually the weight and gender are necessary for determining the volume in which the alcohol is distributed, and the ethnicity was just my oblique way of reminding you that a Native American in all likelihood doesn't process alcohol in the same way as eg. a teutonic titan might.

Promille is indeed the conventional unit, and I asked because I know that Munchkin earlier gave a number that looked like a percentage.

Quote:

---

The law specifically states: If you're driving a car while being impared and you know about it, you'll face punishment. Honestly, if your condition is such that you cannot be expected to drive safely, then you have no business driving a car. None.

And "nothing more dangerous than a car"? Yes, a car plowing into a throng of people is sooooo harmless. :rolleyes:

---

Yes, if you get into the driver's seat while experiencing significant hypoglycemia and neglect to eat a cookie you're knowingly "driving while impaired". That doesn't change the fact that at least in Sweden Type 1 diabetics are allowed to drive cars and likely won't be prosecuted if they have an accident even if they're found to be hypoglycemic because hypoglycemia isn't always very easy to anticipate or react to. A person who has a serious and recurrent problem with hypoglycemia while driving may have his license pulled, but that's on a case by case basis.

As for cars, cars are certainly dangerous, and all I meant was that diabetics who use insulin aren't allowed to drive lorries or buses. They are allowed to drive cars and even ride bicycles, even though everyone knows what kind of havoc a bicycle can wreak when it gets sucked into the turbines of a landing airliner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Actually the weight and gender are necessary for determining the volume in which the alcohol is distributed, and the ethnicity was just my oblique way of reminding you that a Native American in all likelihood doesn't process alcohol in the same way as eg. a teutonic titan might.

Promille is indeed the conventional unit, and I asked because I know that Munchkin earlier gave a number that looked like a percentage.

---

That's why I used the formula for a female, duh! And alcohol processing doesn't play a role here since she almost immediately took the test.

Quote:

---

Yes, if you get into the driver's seat while experiencing significant hypoglycemia and neglect to eat a cookie you're knowingly "driving while impaired". That doesn't change the fact that at least in Sweden Type 1 diabetics are allowed to drive cars and likely won't be prosecuted if they have an accident even if they're found to be hypoglycemic because hypoglycemia isn't always very easy to anticipate or react to. A person who has a serious and recurrent problem with hypoglycemia while driving may have his license pulled, but that's on a case by case basis.

As for cars, cars are certainly dangerous, and all I meant was that diabetics who use insulin aren't allowed to drive lorries or buses. They are allowed to drive cars and even ride bicycles, even though everyone knows what kind of havoc a bicycle can wreak when it gets sucked into the turbines of a landing airliner.

---

I'm more for the methods used when dealing with epileptic people - after a seizure, they're watched differing length of times (depending on the type of seizure). If they don't suffer from repeated seizures during that time, they're allowed to drive again.
This method should be used for ALL illnesses which can lead to impairment or loss of consciousness.

At the risk of bumping a thread that was getting fairly, uhm, heated......

This whole Charlie Sheen drama has been both sad and interesting to watch unfold. I don't follow Hollywood gossip, but my son and I used to enjoy watching Two and a Half Men from time to time. Then splat! Charlie is all over the news.....has "willed" himself into sobriety because of his Adonis DNA and tiger blood....with assistance from his two goddesses......

:think:

That is a perfect example of someone who needs help! Altho maybe he isn't "addicted" to any specific drug, (I really am not following this mess either.) he is definitely bipolar! His swings are just too obvious! I watched a bit of him on Piers Morgan's show tonight, and he was a complete opposite from his earlier interviews! I would say he is on a downswing here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

What state has a .06 as impaired?

---

I know DC at the very least has such a law on the books.

Hi Enoch. That's from 2005. And who drives in DC besides cabbies, chauffeurs, or bus drivers, anyway? Even tourists that drive in will park in a lot and take public transit. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

That is a perfect example of someone who needs help! Altho maybe he isn't "addicted" to any specific drug, (I really am not following this mess either.) he is definitely bipolar! His swings are just too obvious! I watched a bit of him on Piers Morgan's show tonight, and he was a complete opposite from his earlier interviews! I would say he is on a downswing here!

---

But he espouses self-will, over any program or "therapy". Just like you do.....so what's the difference? :hmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Hi Enoch. That's from 2005. And who drives in DC besides cabbies, chauffeurs, or bus drivers, anyway?

---

I wasn't aware laws expired every year. ;)

People driving through DC on their way elsewhere, or those who have business in DC? I recently read a story of a woman who was pulled over in DC for some minor infraction, and arrested, (even though her BAC was well below the legal limit, and she only had a single glass of wine at dinner) because of this law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I wasn't aware laws expired every year. ;)

People driving through DC on their way elsewhere, or those who have business in DC? I recently read a story of a woman who was pulled over in DC for some minor infraction, and arrested, (even though her BAC was well below the legal limit, and she only had a single glass of wine at dinner) because of this law.

---

Not many "drive through DC on their way elsewhere". But never mind that. Why did you quote one part of an old post of mine about BAC, while removing the context? I'm not going to hunt backward. What point are you making? :confused:


*DID You also add a quick edit about those who have business in DC?*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Hi Enoch. That's from 2005. And who drives in DC besides cabbies, chauffeurs, or bus drivers, anyway? Even tourists that drive in will park in a lot and take public transit. :p



But he espouses self-will, over any program or "therapy". Just like you do.....so what's the difference? :hmm:

---

Maybe the difference is...I'm not on national tv making an ass of myself! Or maybe because I don't have small children that are affected? Or maybe because I don't have an underlying mental issue? Take your pick!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmunchkin

Maybe the difference is...I'm not on national tv making an ass of myself! Or maybe because I don't have small children that are affected? Or maybe because I don't have an underlying mental issue? Take your pick!

---

Really? There are different standards for people on TV, or those with small children, when it comes to treating addictions and/or recognizing underlying mental health issues?

EDIT: I've got CNN on now, with a re-run of the Sheen interview with Piers Morgan. I think he just said he has the brain of a 10,000 year old, with the boogers of a seven year old. Did I hear that right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Really? There are different standards for people on TV, or those with small children, when it comes to treating addictions and/or recognizing underlying mental health issues?

EDIT: I've got CNN on now, with a re-run of the Sheen interview with Piers Morgan. I think he just said he has the brain of a 10,000 year old, with the boogers of a seven year old. Did I hear that right?

---

Let's try it this way!

1. I haven't had a hospitalization stemming solely from the drug of my choice...alcohol!

2. If you don't think his children are having problems because Dad is wigging out, on national tv no less, and has a stripper and a hooker staying with them when he wants to go out, then I don't know what to tell you!

3. In his tv interviews, he is acting like a complete ass, or a complete mental case...one or the other!

4. If his wife's allegations are true, then he is a dangerous man!


Yes! You heard that right! I thought I would fall out of my chair laughing! :haha:

He looks pretty bad, and sounds even worse. I can't imagine what his family is thinking or feeling now, after Charlie has inundated the TV waves with his.....perspective.

I saw a clip of an interview with his father Martin Sheen, where he compared addictions and mental illness to cancer. A medical condition to be diagnosed and treated. And his role, as a dad, was to love his son even more. It's hard enough to deal with this kind of thing, without having to live it out in full view of the public.

Fame seems to carry a high incidence of substance abuse and addictions. Fame at a young age, even more (see Lindsey Lohan or Michael Jackson et al). There's got to be a correlation. Whatever it is, a dramatic or painful childhood seems to be the common variable, not fame or fortune itself.

Why the hell is Sheen been given this kind of media attention, he doesn't need to be a spectacle he probably needs to be committed.

Munchkin, I recall you were hospitalised recently. There was a thread about it.

I flipped on CNN again. It's still Charlie Sheen talking to Piers Morgan! My god, I just heard the 10,000 years old with 7 year old boogers comment AGAIN! Is this thing on a continuous loop or something?

[And yeah, munch will deny up and down and back again, that alcohol had anything to do with her hospitalization or pancreatic problems.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

[And yeah, munch will deny up and down and back again, that alcohol had anything to do with her hospitalization or pancreatic problems.]

---

She said in that thread, cheerfully, that she had drunk and drugged her pancreas to annihilation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I flipped on CNN again. It's still Charlie Sheen talking to Piers Morgan! My god, I just heard the 10,000 years old with 7 year old boogers comment AGAIN! Is this thing on a continuous loop or something?

[And yeah, munch will deny up and down and back again, that alcohol had anything to do with her hospitalization or pancreatic problems.]

---

I think the media needs to just quit feeding the Charlie Sheen machine! They are giving him just what he wants...more attention. I guess even bad attention is better than none! :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

She said in that thread, cheerfully, that she had drunk and drugged her pancreas to annihilation.

---

I freely admit that my drinking killed my pancreas! I do not deny that at all. According to the letter I just got Sat. from the gastroenterologist, it appears my pancreas was already weak. Whether a hereditary thing or something I caused, I don't know and he didn't say. What I do deny is that I have cravings for, or need in any way, alcohol. I also never had DT's or any kind of withdrawal. I have never had a problem quitting anything, with the exception of cigarettes. Yes, I failed at quitting smoking! :(