There are currently 0 users online.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 21:52
It's all about you again?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 19:06
They are not coddled, they often do not participate in any other crimes or criminal acts & therefore function & have jobs & pay taxes, are productive & contribute. Jails are overcrowded & the budgets are strained & busting. They let the drunk driving convicted keep their jobs & life's by serving any jail time on weekends, so they can keep working & paying taxes & so they will have income to pay their sentenced fines. Dui's & Dwi's are crimes that pay municipalities, they are a lot of revenue, people in jail can't earn & can't pay. If they continue to offend then they go to jail, along with the punishments from earlier convictions, fines, rehab time, AA time, community service, loss of driving privileges, the usual.
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:45
Why would anybody with a life opt out to go to jail if you can sidestep it by going to a recovery group and probation? If you think you would just do your time Ill bet you dont have mortgage payments and a job. How about car payments and family and bills? Its a fucking no-brainer, lose everything you worked for including your job or go to AA? i could see if you have no possessions, no real place to live, no responsibilities no children no animals and be about 18 years old, that would be different. For the average person going to jail could be financially and emotionally devastating.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:43
comment removed by creator.
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 21:20
All righty, then. First of all the anti-AAs bitch and moan about people being illogically mandated to attend AA as part of their sentences. So if you take away that option, what do you have? You have jail. Or you have a slap on the wrist and, aw shucks, Jervis, just don't get caught next time.
What do you want?? These people who get busted for DUIs are knowingly, arrogantly breaking the law. Thieves and rapists and other criminals sometimes have families, too - do you want them to walk because jails are crowded?
Build more jails. Create jobs. Lock them up. They broke the law with impunity. They should pay. AND they should NOT pay by contaminating AA meetings with attitude and bullshit.
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 22:34
the best deterrent is money, charge them more money. Attendance with a licensed professional that costs them money, no free AA rides. Jail, really, for say a 21 year old first time offender. I guess I'm more forgiving than you Beckett, it's not arrogant, but a stupid mistake to drink & drive. Also it's a mistake someone can make when they are very young & stupid. Most sentenced drinking driving attendee's @ AA, are unobtrusive, polite, quiet, they do not want to rock the boat & they are not disrespectful, they are @ the AA person's mercy & they know it. It's the convicted & dangerous felons that are paroled to AA from prison, that should stop immediately, but it won't. AA does not care what the rank & file member thinks or feels, not what you think or feel or Clara or Rick, they want to keep the rooms filled, keep the thing around & keep collecting their fat paychecks, like Wilson & Lois did.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 08:22
You are ignorantly assuming that everyone has money. This is akin to the proposition that all people in the U.S. must have medical insurance by a particular year. Millions will not do so because they have no money. So what do you suggest for those who are unfamiliar with the term "discretionary income"?
In what universe is drinking and driving not arrogant? It's not about not wanting to rock the boat or be disrespectful: it's about getting or not getting caught. Period.
I don't give two shits about the money that flows in and out of AA. If it troubles you so, put your neck in a noose and get noisy about it where it might count, not on a forum.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 13:35
they work out payment plans all the time, every day. if you can't pay you come in & refinance another payment plan. if you did the crime you have to pay the fines & people do pay the fines & they do work out payment plans every day.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 14:23
A payment plan would indicate that there is a little thing in place called INCOME. Do you not read the newspapers? Would they take a firstborn in lieu of an installment?
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 17:11
Majority drunk drivers pay the money you know this
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 18:45
No, I do not know this. More presumption. Ugly.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 18:52
It is common knowledge & you are well aware that most dui's & dwi's are law abiding citizens who are not criminals & do not participate in any other criminal activity. When they get in trouble, they comply with their sentences, they pay the fines, they do not drive, they do the community service, they attend AA, they comply with the court system & are cooperative.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 08:38
Then that knocks out other alternatives that the board supports, such as SMART, RR, and SOS as one of the hallmarks was that these programs were FREE while AA CHARGES (even though all pass baskets and try to be self suppoting. I never understood why they think these are all that different) My only other position on mandate is that you sent the person to the program that suits the crime.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 13:59
the really sad thing about sentencing people to AA instead of alternatives is that AA does not help or work. If the drunk driver or the convicted & paroled felon has a drug or alcohol addiction they may actually learn & benefit from a sane alternative with sane members. Cults & faith healing environments do not have much to offer to anybody those in need of assistance or any one else. That 5% who swear by AA, really how many of them really stopped their addiction because God took over? And how many of that 5% has another agenda, the predators, the lonely, etc.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 18:46
What is wrong with sentencing them to jail?
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 17:44
Clara, I don't know why you keep throwing up this strawman. Please show us where anybody said the alternatives are free and AA charges. You're making things up again.
Troll free AA critical forumhttp://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 20:38
I am not. Go through the thread where we talked about SMART. I pointed out that they too have a basket toss and a bend toward being self supporting. Everyone was talking about how AA charges while the alternatives are free. No, they aren't. They ask the same thing that AA does.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 20:43
SMART doesn't ask you to pray and turn your life over to inanimate objects. Once you eliminate those two attributes, there are no similarities between SMART and AA at all. Everything you are talking about has nothing to do with stopping drinking, just like AA..........
"Tradition 10 - Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the AA name ought never be drawn into public controversy." Please follow orders from the Interchurch Center if you are an AA member and don't comment.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 20:48
Nobody suggested that AA charges. Jeez, woman, you're both a liar and an idiot. I don't really believe in gawd, but I'll make an exception this time and pray for you.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 20:59
Why don't you do us all a favor. Leave this forum for a while until you can reach some civility. You are embarrassing yourself.
“The more I traveled the more I realized that fear makes strangers of people who should be friends.”
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 21:09
I don't think you have any say so or weight in this matter at all, go back to Fornits if they haven't banned you there already. You aren't fooling anyone.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 08:54
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 21:11
Colors, causeandeffect. True colors.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 21:15
You can go back and read the posts for yourself. it was worded any number of ways. C'mon, do yourself a favor so you don't waste that prayer on someone that doesn't need it.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 09:25
That's the same dodge tactic you use every. single. time. you. are. lying. or. evading. The fact is that nobody said that AA charges. AA does cost, though, when people are charged exorbitant prices for rehab and the cost to society in general by using a program of superstitious faith healing that's been proven ineffective. And nobody ever claimed that SMART doesn't pass the hat.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 09:35
It doesn't have anything to do with the therapeutic value of SMART or Alcoholics Anonymous. It is just a deflection technique of an AA troll.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 09:52
JR, it really doesn't have anything to do with anything other than it's a lie clara keeps repeating and repeating and repeating. She does this very often. Creates a strawman and keeps referring to it, as if it means anything to anybody but her.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, clara's actually misunderstanding that when we speak of the cost of AA and we are referring the cost in lives, and the cost in untold suffering of perpetuating ineffective superstitious faith healing nonsense, she is misunderstanding and thinking we are talking cost in $$. But could anybody really be that unintelligent? I mean, we are very specific about these things.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:10
No that is not what we were discussing, Cause. Can you be so misguided so as to always go back and change what you think we were discussing? No one was talking about the "cost in lives" on that thread, and you know that. We also wouldn't know about "cost in lives' with regard to the alternatives you find to be so superior because they don't keep records of any kind. SMART has been around for decades but has nothing to say regarding its efficacy despite the "science" you believe is involved with the program. Yes, we were very specific about what we were discussing. You must have just not been there.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:06
It's hardly a dodge tactic, Cause. As I have said before, I am really not interested in the hash, hash and rehash tactic that is common to this board. Trying to wear someone down about something doesn't change it.
There are posts that state the AA charges while the alternatives were free, their matierals were free and you could go to meeting online. I pointed out that AA has had meetings online since 1986, you can download the materials for free from RecoveryApp, and no one has to pay anything to go to a meeting. If you missed these posts, fine. This was when I was demonstrating how similar I found the SMART program to be to that of AA, and how most of these alternatives were started by former AAs that took what they wanted from AA, left the rest, and "created" their own program. If you look, I am sure you can find them.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:09
Clara, you are the one that keeps harping on the "free" program of AA and that these other programs such as SMART are the same because they "pass the hat?" Be real, you just described your own tactics to us in detail.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 11:24
There were no posts that says AA charges for meetings, or anything other than its literature. Nobody ever implied a charge other than donations for either program. AA's literature is free online only because wilson forgot to get the copyright renewed for the big book or those offering it would be sued as we have clearly seen happen in other countries. I was there for that discussion so I can state categorically that you are a liar.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 06:21
I agree completely, becket. Clara should have gone to jail for DUI.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 08:34
Without question, Ironic. There are people in jail now for multiple DUIs. You should go to jail to for your using. Avo did illegal things, too, in the course of her active addiction. I think many of us have. If I had been caught with the mmj I had for my dog, I would have possibly had problems. I wasn't the card carrying member. But I was willing to risk the 2k fine and possible sentence because I believe it would help my dog.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 08:36
Clara pumping iron in the exercise yard covered in jail tats surrounded by her "crew"...lol
God damn it, get me a whiskey
Bill W, Deathbed
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 13:20
Shit Clara. You seem to bring my name into a lot of your posts. I know, I know. A lot of people bring your name too. But I do wonder, why do you mention my name as often as you do to give examples?
First of all, your other post about the same goes for SMART and SOS as an option for DUI's I do agree with. I commented more on that below (I think that’s where it ends up).
The part about “you should go to jail to for your using” (Like Avo), is not in the same ballpark as dui. I resent that (whoops!). DUI's are not sentenced because they were drunk or high, they were sentenced because they were driving WHILE they were drunk. Big, big difference.
I'm not saying that I wasn't bad, but I was the kind of bad that does deserve a slap on the wrist and MAybe a recovery sentence/fine. I'm not sure exactly what else, and I don't mind discussing that. I’m adamant that jail is not a proper sentence for using drugs. My illegal "things" involved buying drugs for personal use, and abusing it. I'm willing to take on the appropriate repercussions for that, or reluctantly would have been. But I'm not sure what they are and/ or should be. Again we can talk about that. But Clara, when you say that Avo has done things that are illegal opens the door to a lot of questionable acts, which isn't the case. Not that I’m Saintly, it’s just that I’m not “Avo, the big bad drug addict that goes to any lengths to get more”.
Also, I’m not condemning the drunk drivers as much as it sounds. I really believe that the nonsense sentences and the fact that repeat offenders get the chance to continue makes the situation seem of lesser importance than it is. Thus, more repeat offenders.
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 14:00
Just pointing out that alot of people do illegal things in the course of their addictions regarldess of what side of the AA line they stand on. While it wasn't illegal to drive away after making the buy, it was illegal to buy it at all or to have it in your possession. The difference is being caught. Penny made this observation a couple of months ago. I put myself in my examples as much as anyone else. I was willing to risk a misdemeanor charge of possession (2 ounces or less) in Texas because I believed (and still do!) that the mmj was a benefit to my dog. I'd do it again, but it doesn't make it legal.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 15:33
I agree Clara. It’s common knowledge that drug abusers have committed various crimes. But buying isn't the same as dui. Simple. When you bought for your dog you weren’t putting everyone that you came in contact with in danger. That I broke the law is very true, and I was always aware of that. I was greedy too, I wanted my dope. ....I appreciate your point, but not sure why the need to make it. Especially since we don't do that anymore. The lesson has been learned and I'm thankful for it.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 16:06
I would be the first to admit that there is a difference in terms of danger, but that isn't a legal consideration. The only one that matters to prosecution is legality.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 16:27
Clara, the obvious difference between me & Avo and yourself, the one that we both tried to make light of, is that our using drugs is not of the same severity as risking the lives of others by driving fucked up. Neither of us ever deny being drug addicts on OPF.
You mentioned you not being the "cardholder." So I will say again that it doesn't matter who has a card. Texas is not an mmj state. So who cares about a card (you mentioned it earlier in this thread, "not being the cardholder").
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 16:33
Ironic, I think you are missing it so I will just move on.
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 22:46
Ironic, that was also the point I was making. Clara said you missed the mark, but that isn't so. She was saying one thing (that we all broke the law) and we were bringing up the diff that ours didn't involve the possibility of people dying. This stemmed from a dui discussion, which is why we focussed on that.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 07:47
Avo, that isn't true. I've taken responsibility for my drinking and driving. It is something that I think about every time I hear about an accident involving booze. It's by serious grace that I didn't cause that for others. But for anyone to say that illegal drug use doesn't involve the possibility of people dying is taking a very shortsighted approach. What do you think those 40 mutilated bodies in Mexico dumped on the highway are linked to? Anyone that uses illicit drugs contributes to that. We hear alot about that because of the three channels through El Paso that are used to traffick drugs to America.
Persephone In Exile
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 08:36
The demand is ALWAYS there, Clara. You can't blame the policies of the US government on the American users of illegal drugs, because that's what essentially leads to the cartel violence. I realize other factors play into that, but if people in the US weren't forced in most cases to get marijuana from illegal sources there wouldn't be nearly the amount of cartel activity that there is. I realize other drugs are involved, but a good hunk of that is weed, and most people buying drugs illegally are not purchasing large amounts of it either. It's like the old fear-mongering ads claiming that drug users were supporting terrorism.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 08:39
Not really, PIE. More than 50% of the money going to the Zetas and Sinaloa cartels is from marijuana. That is a large enough chunk to them that they keep fighting over it. I don't blame all of it any one point, but no one can deny the demand drives it.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 08:55
My point is just that if you're going to assign blame over such a multifaceted issue you might as well say that the policies of the US government are what directly led to those murdered people. That's all.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 08:40
Did you and Avo slip of down to Mexico and wipe out those bad guys Rambo style? The question has to be asked...lol
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 09:55
They should! It's horrifying, really, and you read more about it here than you do elsewhere because it is local type of news.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 09:00
To be perfectly honest I think that your refusing to look at the big picture when it comes to crime related to the drug trade. I am not arguing that buying drugs for personal use isn't a violation of the law. However if we consider that locking up the addict, imposing fines, or shipping them to treatment does nothing to help the situation (in a city of a different country), it stands to reason that the problems are much more significant than people using drugs. In comparison, the dui has a direct impact in causing a crash that can kills an innocent person (not a dealer of the same conspiracy). Stop the dui, stop that death. User goes to jail, the cartel still slits the throat of 40 over the boarder. You will never convince me that a drug abuser significantly impacts the drug war. Millions yes, one no. Locking them up does nothing but ruin their individual lives and kill the country financially. I suspect we will still disagree so instead of bickering about it we can both take it up with our legislators. At least we didn't stoop to personal insults which also does nothing.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 09:59
I am not refusing to look at it at all. I find it very interesting because it is more local to me than it ever has been before. One leads to millions, Avo. A friend of mine used to use a beach analogy. One grain of sand led to a whole beach...
It a shame that you feel personally insulted because it was never the intent. I drove drunk repeatedly and DUI laws reflect the behaviors of people such as myself. It doesn't insult me to speak of my behavior while living the lifestyle of an active drunk. It also doesn't offend me when others address it. It is what it is and nothing changes it.
6 drinks or 16 still nets you an above acceptable BAC in Maryland.
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 11:52
Clara, are you saying I should "look at my part"?
I don't feel insulted personally Clara. I think it's a shame that you are trying to instill in me a personal regret for the death of others.
Ever hear of the domino affect?
Millions (billions?) of dollars are lost because some doctors falsify claims to an insurance company because of missed appointments. Millions of people allow the claim through their private insurance because they don’t want to pay the cancellation fee. As a result the insurance company cuts costs by changing their policy. The denial of otherwise legitimate claims result in lack of treatment for the sick, causing death.
All of this occurring because they don’t have the funding after paying off the illegitimate claims made by a doctor, with the patients approval (they neglected to notify their insurance provider of the false claims). Do you arrest millions of the people participating in the illegal activity and try to induce a guilt by claiming that their actions (or lack of) led to the death of hundreds of unfortunates (which are NOT gun wielding drug traffickers in another country)? My gut tells me that making changes in a corrupt system that allows for millions of petty crime would be more productive.
“The domino effect is a chain reaction that occurs when a small change causes a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence. The term is best known as a mechanical effect, and is used as an analogy to a falling row of dominoes. It typically refers to a linked sequence of events where the time between successive events is relatively small. It can be used literally (an observed series of actual collisions) or metaphorically (causal linkages within systems such as global finance or politics).”