Skip to main content

View Diary: Good news: ACA covers addiction treatment - Bad news: addiction treatment may not work (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's not diagnosed as a dependence (0+ / 0-)

    unless you've tried to stop and could not, or if you've gotten into problems from drinking and didn't stop.  You could be a huge lush but if it hasn't caused any life problems or health problems or legal problems and you haven't ever tried to stop, who knows, you only find out when you try and can't.

    Normal drinkers aren't attracted to drinking, so they would never choose the 'pleasure' of drinks over the peace of mind of not DUI, never.  If they are aware of the likelihood that there will be another DUI if they keep drinking, and they still elect to drink, then alcohol is too important.  Would you give up soda crackers if you got a soda cracker ticket and didn't want the next one?

    It is possible to have a judgement problem that isn't necessarily dependence, especially with younger people, to think it's a one off and won't happen again, but then they'd never drink enough again to be over the limit, because normal drinkers rarely do drink enough for that, maybe at a celebration, and then they'd feel drunk, it would be so unusual, and so would know they were impaired. So the second DUI is diagnostic, ten grand and suspended license. And the third is jail.

    People who know they like drinking, it's great for them so they think, may chose to not drive after drinking to avoid a second DUI, but drinking takes a standard deviation off the old IQ, so it impairs judgement and gets in the way of not driving after drinking. Show up in some drunk driver's ed program and hear the stories.  

    And some people can and do stop without help, they just fight it and they don't go to meetings and they never learn the biology or the sobriety skills, or they didn't have the disease and it was just time to stop.  Many people drink too much in college, or after high school and before responsibilities, and stop when they get married, or get a job, or slow down so much that it's as good as stopping (but if so by definition they don't have the disease. And if they have it and stopped and they'll never drink again, great, but if they go back, some will end up in a rehab, or in jail. It's a progressive disease.)  

    One example is always BS and you know that, maybe that is true for her, or maybe she'll end up drinking more one of these days, one hopes not, but that does not refute the science, any more than a cold day refutes global warming.  You can always find individuals who don't fit the expected outcomes, but it's  a dangerous test, and destructive and if you're trying to defend your own repeated DUI's by calling into question the sobriety of others, that isn't nice.

    This isn't a game for people with the disease, it's life or death.

    •  Thank you for admitting your initial comment (0+ / 0-)

      was incorrect.  In fact logically it would follow that someone who drinks rarely and isn't even near an addict is more likely to not know their limits and get a DUI than an alcoholic.

      That is why addictions counselors in Intoxicated Driving Program participate in this scam I believe.  You have a population of say 40-60 people in the first offender "class" post conviction.  Likely, at most, 1 or 2, 5 on the outside of these people actually have issues with alcohol as opposed to having made isolated judgement mistakes like I did.  

      Of course the ineffective programs you champion can't survive on grant funding for only 1 or 2 people, so they set an artificial quota - say at 45-60% of the class to refer as alcohol abusers regardless of any clinical support for that.

      I will also dispute this idea:

      It is possible to have a judgement problem that isn't necessarily dependence, especially with younger people, to think it's a one off and won't happen again, but then they'd never drink enough again to be over the limit, because normal drinkers rarely do drink enough for that
      This might have been true when BAC for DUI was .1, but since it's been lowered to .08 basically anyone who goes to the bar and does anything more than sniff a thimble of an alcoholic beverage is leaving that bar over the limit.  Almost anyone who leaves their house the next day after drinking is also over the limit.

      The police knowing this, set up shop outside bars to simply "trap" anyone leaving to fill their quotas, the mandatory minimum delivers them to the intoxicated driving program, the IDP counselors simply pick a requisite number of alcohol abusers to invent to satisfy their quotas.

      FYI, I am all for both taking a strong and rational legal stand against drunk driving, getting people effective help if they need it, and the use of BAC as an evidential factor (but not a sentencing factor).

      Having gone through the system myself, having been abused and harassed unrelentingly by it's participants and observed it keenly it is clear that currently these intervention programs (in NJ at least) are broken, corrupt and can in no way guarantee the public that the purpose of the laws they supported are being fulfilled.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site