Printable View
GGT, she's making stuff up. For a female person to reach a BAC of 0.8 after one drink (make that a 0.4 Liter 5% beer) she'd have to weigh only 25 Kilograms - at that weight, she'd have different problems than a mere DUI because she'd be in an ICU...Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It's not the first time he drove drunk, it's just the first time he got busted.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
Quote:
To you, those were 5 day binges, to me they were social life, since there is no other here unless you count the grocery store!
These social aspects can be some of the most difficult aspects of alcohol abuse, much like with other forms of substance abuse :(Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
One of the more important questions when screening for alcohol abuse...Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
It also means you can't easily cheat by buying yourself a lenient or unscruplous therapist.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
If you're sentenced to prison do you think you should get to decide exactly where you are imprisoned? Maybe you should be "imprisoned" in your favourite bar? :bulb:
The point you were trying to make was that most people who get busted for a DUI don't deserve the punishment. And also that the punishment causes more DUIs :bulb:Quote:
I was trying to make the point that NOT EVERYONE who gets a DUI have deep-seated, severe emotional or mental issues.
Well duh he won't make that mistake again, not now that he's been busted and punished and therapified :pQuote:
Or is Joe, like most arrested for DUI, a person who made a mistake...one he won't make again?
I have thought about it and decided that these crazy people should never be let out of jail or have their licenses returned to them in the first place. Since we don't know which ones are this crazy, we shouldn't let anyone who's been busted for DUI be allowed back into the driver's seat ever again. It's the only reasonable solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
Or in a teepee, because she'd be a Native American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
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!
I also watched a man have 2 mixed drinks in about an hour, and once again, about 30 minutes later, he blew a .06. That would have gotten him arrested for impaired driving, and probably reckless driving depending on his driving skills.
You may think personal anecdotes have no place in a debate, but sometimes they are the only source someone has.
While you all think I am an idiot, what I am is opinionated! I firmly believe that people make mistakes. I could have easily made a mistake, had I been at the bar, and driven after that 1 drink. Would I have intended to break the law? No. Would I have broken the law? Yes. And I would have taken my punishment.
Do I believe that therapists are taking advantage of the current trend of thinking everything is an addiction? Hell yes! They are human too, and want to make as much money as they can. Some honestly believe they are helping people, and maybe they are in some way. But, not all the things being called addictions really are. FFS, should I go see a therapist for my FarmVille addiction?
Do I believe there are people out there who seriously need help, whether for an addiction, a mental health issue, or an emotional issue? Yes. Do I think that those who need help, and/or want help, are always able to get help? Hell no! It might be a financial issue, it might be a therapist shortage in that area issue, or it might be because someone in their family is adamantly against them getting that help! Is that fair? Hell no! Anyone who wants therapy should be able to get it, especially regardless of finances. Even the state of Wyoming charges poor people on a sliding scale. If you have NO income, it still costs $20 to see the therapist for 50 minutes. Sometimes it's impossible to come up with that $20!
*I did this voluntarily at the request of a man I had a lot of respect for. That man was the Chief of Police of BFE at the time. He has since retired!
Naw. I don't like camping out! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26439767...th-addictions/Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
And about one in thirty deaths in the general population? How is this not a PROBLEM? :bulb:
That depends!Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
1. Are you addicted to FarmVille?
2. Is it having significantly negative consequences on your health and on your life?
3. Have you tried to quit and failed?
Except for FarmVille addicts :downcast:Quote:
Anyone who wants therapy should be able to get it
Bullshit. What state has .06 as legally impaired? You also have sources on the intarwebs that can explain to you why height and weight and consumption can give different blood or blow results.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
Refresh my memory. You had at least one DUI, and lambasted the punishment, requiring you to see a "drunk counselor". Got anything new to complain about?Quote:
While you all think I am an idiot, what I am is opinionated! I firmly believe that people make mistakes. I could have easily made a mistake, had I been at the bar, and driven after that 1 drink. Would I have intended to break the law? No. Would I have broken the law? Yes. And I would have taken my punishment.
Is playing Farmville keeping you from taking care of yourself, or finding gainful employment? Do you feel frantic when Farmville is off-line, or you can't pay your internet bill? Would you go to extreme measures to get Farmville?Quote:
Do I believe that therapists are taking advantage of the current trend of thinking everything is an addiction? Hell yes! They are human too, and want to make as much money as they can. Some honestly believe they are helping people, and maybe they are in some way. But, not all the things being called addictions really are. FFS, should I go see a therapist for my FarmVille addiction?
Now you're saying that because some people can't get therapy, or pay for therapy, and that isn't fair.....that therapy is a contrived necessity?Quote:
Do I believe there are people out there who seriously need help, whether for an addiction, a mental health issue, or an emotional issue? Yes. Do I think that those who need help, and/or want help, are always able to get help? Hell no! It might be a financial issue, it might be a therapist shortage in that area issue, or it might be because someone in their family is adamantly against them getting that help! Is that fair? Hell no! Anyone who wants therapy should be able to get it, especially regardless of finances. Even the state of Wyoming charges poor people on a sliding scale. If you have NO income, it still costs $20 to see the therapist for 50 minutes. Sometimes it's impossible to come up with that $20!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
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?Quote:
Refresh my memory. You had at least one DUI, and lambasted the punishment, requiring you to see a "drunk counselor". Got anything new to complain about?
No, but I can certainly see where it could be that big of a problem for some people. For me, it's just an enjoyable distraction from real life. I get to have pink cows and green rabbits, and get to laugh at it! Oh yeah, I do feel frantic when I can't pay my internet bill tho! Of course, up until this month, the internet was my only source of entertainment. I didn't have cable until now.Quote:
Is playing Farmville keeping you from taking care of yourself, or finding gainful employment? Do you feel frantic when Farmville is off-line, or you can't pay your internet bill? Would you go to extreme measures to get Farmville?
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.Quote:
Now you're saying that because some people can't get therapy, or pay for therapy, and that isn't fair.....that therapy is a contrived necessity?
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:
And of course it should be you, the person who did not realize gravity could happen on the Moon, to decide which addictions are real. Grow up.
What state has a .06 as impaired?Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
Maybe you should have been pissed at yourself for driving while impaired, instead of being pissed at the police or your state.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?
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:
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.
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?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 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.
You do realize that BAC stands for BLOOD Alcohol Concentration?Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
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?
Er, I get the feeling you didn't read the whole post :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
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!
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:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
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:
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.
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.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!
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.
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:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
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.
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.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.
And "nothing more dangerous than a car"? Yes, a car plowing into a throng of people is sooooo harmless. :rolleyes:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Promille is indeed the conventional unit, and I asked because I know that Munchkin earlier gave a number that looked like a percentage.
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.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:
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.
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:
Originally Posted by Aimless
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.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.
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!
I know DC at the very least has such a law on the books.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:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmunchkin
I wasn't aware laws expired every year. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
*DID You also add a quick edit about those who have business in DC?*