A friend of mine received a DUI, first offense, just at the .o8 level and received: time in jail,her license restricted, with a breathalyser mechanism for her vehicle and and probation.

No deals were offered.

She had a valid current drivers license and no prior convictions regarding DUI or any other infraction.

She is not above the law.

She should resign immediately, as she has shown that she has not respect for the law.

Yes behaviors are elective, but your body’s response to that behavior is not. I can drink a couple glasses of wine with dinner, have a beer on the patio with my husband, or a cocktail when we are out and be just fine. However, I know folks who take one drink and they have a very different physiological response. One never means one; a couple means a couple plus 5 or 6, maybe more. How do you know if you are that unlucky guy? Take an innocent first drink or two, drink socially as is so common, go to college and follow the crowd, grow up in an environment where the question, “Can I get you something to drink” is often spoken. Then one day you realize you don’t control it, it controls you. Hopefully you have access to good treatment and a support system that understands.

The disease process of alcoholism is based in that response mechanism. Be it drugs, substances, or other behaviors there are some who have the hard wiring to become addicted. For these folks there is no choice but to abstain completely from those actions. Then there are others who just choose to be irresponsible. They put there own selfish wants before the needs of others. The end result might be the same but the root cause is not.

Thanks. I tend to agree with you from a personal responsibility focus and I agree with what you said about treatment and the “disease” rhetoric. Honestly, a disease hits you without provocation many times, but you have to take that first drink to become an alcoholic.

Still, I do think we need to do more to treat these addictions. It works when jail just does not.

Timothy,

Unfortunately, the answer to your last question is a big “yep” by some. Not some here, clearly.

As I was getting at, you can’t possibly sell consistency in sentences and tough on crime to the rest of America, with a straight-face, without bringing those same harsh penalties on those you like when they mess up. Fair is fair, right? Although, I personally don’t believe that Ms. Groe will get anything out of prison.

Also, when the lawyering begins remember all the rhetoric I hear often about the the evil defense lawyer who is using every trick in the book to get her off or lighten her sentence. Will the faith-based treatment program become an excuse to lighten the sentence? Probably. That is what mitigation and taking ownership of a problem is all about. I bet she will do it and good for her.

The disease concept is consistent with the philosophy of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Most importantly, it has also been both profitable and politically successful, reaching to include problems of compulsive shopping, gambling, eating, child abuse, obsessive love affairs and nearly every imaginable form of self-destructive behavior. From this perspective, nearly every one of us can be said to have a “disease” of addiction.

These are behaviors–not diseases. Behaviors are elective, whereas true medical diseases are not.

….and well well taken about the dialogue part. I will restrain my urges of “and another thing…”

Take care.

Dealing with the reality of losing a legislative seat this late in the session when every vote counts and she was a valuable member, is tough not only for her, but for those of us who depended on her reasoned advocacy.

A few quick points:
1. This is a dialogue comment line. The intent is for people to have a “conversation,” of sorts.
You post and then answer yourself. Then post again. Give the rest of us a chance to respond to the main post rather than to one person’s domination of the comments.

2. Regarding Rep. Groe’s sad saga: Alcoholism and drug usage became “diseases” with the advent of high-dollar rehab centers. If “clients” could be convinced that they were not responsible for bending their elbow, snorting cocaine or shooting heroin, because they were “diseased” they didn’t have to assume full responsibility for their actions. Example: cancer and Lou Gherig’s (ALS) Disease are, in fact, diseases. They are not caused by actions (except for lung cancer’s relationship to smoking). A person might have a genetic predisposition to not metabolizing alcohol, but that condition in and of itself, is not a disease. Many in the established medical community have known this as fact for years. Oprah was responsible for spreading the misinformation that has been eagerly grabbed up by those who prefer to sanitize themselves or their loved ones, as well as those who benefit financially (health care professionals or investors) from perpetrating this myth. It is now de rigueur to refer to drug users as “substance abusers.” And just how does one “abuse” a substance? The term addict has gone the way of buggy whips, since using that term doesn’t encourage participation in expensive, residential therapy.

This is a subject with which I have more than just passing experience.

——————————————————————————–
See what’s free at AOL.com.