but there are LOTS of issues here.

Not everyone who drinks excessively, and then is involved in an accident of some sort, is in fact 'alcoholic.' Many are 'problem drinkers,' and many are just fools.

But many are caught and jailed behind that mantel.

Are far too often the effect of having imbibed and the loss of a functioning mind.

them, should be excused "Because disease?"

What IS your argument, here?

so they drink at home. No one is going to arrest them for private intoxication.

Do I?

You should spend time in an inpatient state mental health facility in texas. You'd only wish you were in jail.

it's a crime to operate a motor vehicle while drunk. That law applies to alcoholics and non-alcoholics equally.

Similarly, alcoholics who get drunk and shoot someone or beat up their wives get punished the same way as non-alcoholics who commit those criminal acts.

"I was drunk" is never a valid excuse under the law.

Not an excuse, just a fact.

My understanding is that alcoholics often have a much greater tolerance for alcohol than a non-alcoholic.

Or pedophiles for having sex with children.

We do not arrest people for who they are. We arrest them for what they do.

It's the comes and consequences of the disease.

If I go totally blind from it and then decide to get in my car and drive across town anyway, I will be criminally prosecuted. Alcoholism is a disease that needs to be treated, but drunk driving is a crime.

alcoholics. Most times it's just stupid people making stupid decisions that can hurt and kill other people. Your premise is kinda messed up here to be honest.

It's pretty simple. Don't drink and drive.

after a couple of glasses of wine? In most states that might send you to jail.

Lot's of people make choices to drive after the two glasses of wine and alot of people get arrested for DWI because of it. Sorry, I have no sympathy. I have a family member that was killed from a drunk driver.

And to answer your question NO. I never drive even after one glass of wine. My husband does not drink so he does all the driving when we are out.

will not allow them to realize that driving after drinking is bad, should they face life behind bars?

They had no clue when they got behind the wheel.

Again, not everyone that get's a DWI is an alcoholic.

If you are an alcoholic and you kill someone because you are driving should you not be charged with a crime? Is that what you are saying? How do you differentiate DWI suspects from just casual drinkers?

... to be particularly obtuse about the explanations.

People are not arrested/jailed for having a disease. They are stopped for dangerously driving an object that weighs thousands of pounds and putting the lives of others in danger. Period.

Don't drive if you are legally blind. Don't drive if you have a seizure disorder. Don't drive without a license. Don't drive if you've even sniffed the cork of a wine bottle.

My son was "stricken with a disease" -- he developed a seizure disorder. It surely was not his fault, but he lost his license to drive for a specified length of time (over 6 months) until he was medically certified to be taking medication and had not had another seizure.

I don't care what your problem is: DON'T PUT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES IN DANGER. And if you won't stop your behavior, you deserve to lose your license, and if you persist and/or harm others, you deserve to lose your freedom for awhile as well.

However, I fight this daily...

Wishing I could be as pure as you.

Average sentence for a first time offender for vehicular manslaughter is 3 to 15 years. Sounds reasonable to me. You make shitty life choices like driving drunk and someone dies because of it, you should face the consequences of your negligent actions.

My family is full of alcoholics and all of them know that driving after drinking is bad. So they don't do it. They drink at home or get a designated driver or take a cab.

WTF is with this EVERYONE DOES IT bullshit - I have always had a zero tolerance policy regarding drinking and driving so no, I have never done it

If a practicing alcoholic knows there is any remote risk that they would drink and drive, they should plan ahead have someone else drive or drink at home.

You can't however legally drive. So it's pretty simple.

which is bestly known for its ability to cloud judgement and its addictive qualities one should be held in higher account to other crimes committed while diagnosed with other mental deficits?

Or, is alcoholism simply a character defect that one has choice and control over?

You can not legally drive while intoxicated.
Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.

Don't buy a car.

And for most, alcoholism hits far beyond the age of car ownership.

When you are in your sober moments, you know you will be breaking the law later unless you do something about it.

he made a decision he was never going to injure or kill someone on the road

but with me an my siblings, it only hit my oldest brother - he was 48 when he passed - we were 11 months apart.

I was hoping the automobile age would be over by now.

Once we move past gasoline, the cars will be electric, but still on the road with alcohol or some other back up fuel source. Public transportation is nice in large cities, but does nothing for the millions out in rural areas, many of whom enable the rest to live in the cities.

... requiring another numbered "license" to drive, confining most people to live where the public roads are.

With license plate scanning technology, and data kept of every electronic transaction, the problem is getting worse.

No fascist government has to ask "Papers Please" anymore to know where you are or what you are doing.

Automobiles and cell phones are tools of fascism, perfect for the sorts of restrictive societies where anyone is free to say whatever they like so long as it is inconsequential. That's why big money embraces them

The clown in the four wheel drive vehicle, or carrying the smart phone, sticks out like a sore thumb, even off the roads. The human walking with no electronics is invisible.

When I was a kid, before I was married with kids, I used to experiment with this.

Oh, the places I've been...

Anyways, that's one of the reasons the unlicensed class of motor vehicles in France intrigued me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112795475

that you are referring to the kid who drove drunk, killed FOUR people, and left TWO others paralyzed for life. Had he drunk himself into oblivion, and stayed home, he would not be sitting in a Mexican detention center. But his actions had fatal consequences for four people, and catastrophic consequences for two others. The fact that he may or may not be an alcoholic should not absolve him from the consequences of his selfish actions.
As the adult daughter of alcoholics, and the sister of two alcoholics, I have zero sympathy for that nasty brat, or his enabling, coddling mother.

This was light years from "bad things happen". It was homicide. THAT is what he needs to be punished for.

you do something illegal and get caught. The courts don't care whether you're diseased, they charge you for what you DID.
I don't drink alcohol AT ALL, and I've been a diabetic for 25 years - never been arrested for it - yet.

I'm with you: Tough noogies.

Not all alcoholics drink in bars or away from home. Some are actually smart enough to know they shouldn't drink and drive.

And on the very rare occasion he drank too much when he wasn't at home, he was with my mom 95% of the time and she drove home.

There is simply NO EXCUSE for driving while drunk. None.

If you can't control yourself enough not to drink and drive, get rid of the damn car.

If you know that you have a problem with alcohol, don't get behind the wheel. It's that simple. Stay at home and drink. You are a menace to the greater society the minute you get into an automobile impaired.

BTW, not all drunk driving incidents are caused by alcoholics. Non alcoholics get drunk too.

This is not a terribly unpopular opinion. It is a terribly ignorant opinion. Calling an asshole who gets drunk and drives and kills someone a scapegoat is an abuse of the word.

that is something else and the action that something else thing leads to is a criminal action. Being an alcoholic might not be a completely voluntary thing we can argue if it is or isn't all day long. But, driving that takes voluntary actions and that is what is being punished not the involuntary disease of alcoholism. And yes all alcoholics should be in a treatment center until they realize they can't handle drinking alcohol without getting out of control.

or jimmies the lock, or just borrows another car. OP is right about one thing. Alcoholics lack judgement, and I believe it's nearly impossible to keep them from driving if they're bound and determined to. Where I part company with him/her is that I believe they should be severely punished if they do so.

Maybe a sophisticated enough unit would stop at least a fair percentage.

I think there should be severe punishment as well, plus treatment. That would at least serve as notice and might cause some to take preventive steps in advance. Plus I contend you'd have to be virtually unconscious not to have some realization that getting behind the wheel drunk is a bad idea.

you most likely have a camera mounted on the windshield that takes a pic of whos blowing and it happens every 15 minutes or less.

I have experience both with alcoholics and with having people close to me killed by drunk drivers.

I firmly belive that many forms of what we call alcoholism, at least, are physiological conditions directly related to brain chemistry and liver enzymes.

I also believe that for many of the people who have that physiological condition, once they start drinking it is extremely difficult to stop, and in many cases the process of kicking the alcohol dependence can be harrowing or even life-threatening. These are medical facts.

But I do believe, too, that it is within the power of the alcoholic to avoid the first drink, whatever the 12 steppers may say, and even they have one of those built in logical conundrums common to theological thought, whereby even if the alcoholic is supposedly "powerless" against that first drink, the alcoholic is suposed to not be powerless to attend meetings and turn his life over to god to avoid the first drink, which seems a minor distinction.

But I digress. Even in the case of alcoholics being unable to control drinking once started and even if they have an obsessive compulsion to seek out that first drink, nothing forces any alcoholic or drunk person to get behind the wheel of a car.

And that's the rub- if you have a condition which could potentially endanger others, it is incumbent upon you to manage it so that you do not, as much as possible. This is true whether the condition is your "fault", or no.

and murdered some people, he's not responsible. Extend that thinking and no crime committed by an alcoholic under the influenceshould be prosecuted.

and being intoxicated and disruptive. Among the terms of probation, he was that he attend anger management classes and seek treatment for his alcohol addiction. He refused, stating that he would rather serve time. So he did.

Not all alcoholics believe that their drinking is a problem.

There is, and it would open both legal and medical holes in the ground if ever asked seriously in a court. I have never had a car accident but have been arrested for DUI and haven't a good answer. But know that for many, incarceration trumps any sort of treatment other than AA which bases its "cure" on the magic thinking that only God can relieve the suffering.

For the atheist and non Christian, that can pose some problems in that your "god" does not coincide with their god.

I have been fighting with this for years and have no real answers but many many questions that I even have trouble formulating.

While under the adverse effects of that condition. My ex, for instance, lost her license due to a physical disorder causing her to spasm and pass out; a friend of mine is severely epileptic and can't get s license. So they voluntarily DON'T drive.

When a person with alcoholism knows, or should know, they have a disease and choose to drive anyway -- or even maintain an automobile -- then they need to face the consequences of putting people n danger.

I get what you're saying. We definitely need to treat addiction from a medical standpoint and take the stigma away. "If addiction is a disease, then how come it's the only disease where people get mad at you for having? No one gets mad at someone with cancer; a junkie didn't wake up and say 'I think I'll be a burden on society from now on,'" to paraphrase a comedian.

...the influence of alcohol from driving. The damage to lives and happiness warrants it.

on the road and endanger others, while impaired.

If you are totally blind, you should not drive.

If you have uncontrolled epilepsy, you should not drive, until and unless you can get the seizures under control.

If you are drunk, you should not drive.

It is needless to say not a crime to be blind, or have epilepsy, or be alcoholic; but it is a crime to drive when these conditions make you a danger to others on the road.

explicitly and flamboyantly illustrates the fallacy of confusing a public health problem with a criminal justice problem. addiction and abuse disorders should not be handled by the police, and drunk driving should not be handled by doctors.

Even if they are an alcoholic, should at the very least lose their license. Thousands of people are killed each year because people drive while impaired, and many of those deaths are caused by people who have numerous convictions for drinking and driving and are not even licensed to drive. And if you are drinking and driving and kill someone then you should spend a long time in prison. Alcoholism is most likely a "disease," but at the end of the day a person chooses to drink and then drive.

There are plenty of alcoholics who do not drink and drive. And there are plenty of non-alcoholics who do.

How do you know this so well?

drives to a bar - knowing they will need to get home - gets drunk, attempts to drive home and crashes into another car while intoxicated and kills two people and severely injures another?

for someone who shares a carafe of wine at dinner and is stopped on the way home?

as the bar drinker did not. They both committed the same crime.

However they get drunk.

they need to be taught it is NEVER OK to drink and drive - if their couple of glasses impairs them to the point it affects their driving, off to jail they go.

IT IS *NEVER* OK

Let's put public intoxication laws aside for just a second, which were upheld by the Warren Court 5-4, because you seem to be talking about other crimes committed.

If someone is alcohol dependent and is driving under the influence, his or her driving license should be revoked. If he or she then drives, he or she must then be involuntarily institutionalized ... and hopefully treated.

...she very likely would have been taken to jail and left untreated and possibly died. You did the right thing to drive for her. She was impaired and could have killed someone else with her car. You do understand that, right? You saved more than one life that night.

Drunks are not arrested for alcoholism. They are arrested and taken off the streets (jailed) for driving drunk. They are are a danger to themselves and others -- a lot of people have died or been maimed from being hit by drunk drivers.

You can argue about the severity of sentencing, but you won't get any sympathy from me about drivers who fail a Breathalyzer test or a field sobriety test. You can make a case for compassionate treatment -- but not for continuing to let alcoholics drive drunk.

My ex used to work as a bartender, and started driving home every night absolutely loaded. He was stopped more than once by the cops -- once he took the wrong fork in the road and they simply pointed him back in the right direction; once he ended up in an agricultural field, same thing. He never got arrested. I used to go to bed at night wondering if I would wake up as a widow.

Until we moved to California. He fell off the wagon and started driving drunk again. I got a phone call from him from the County Jail one morning saying he'd been picked up by the law. (I did the decent thing and asked if he was all right, and he said yes.) That was over 35 years ago, and from that day to this he has never driven after drinking; and at some point he managed to quit drinking altogether. I gather the overall experience was both incredibly humiliating and incredibly expensive -- but I can tell you this: it saved his life.

should not be prosecuted for it ?

They aren't being punished for their thoughts, but for acting on them and committing or facilitating rape.

You could say it increases a risk of harm, but so does driving while old, and that isn't against the law.

have sex with them. even if there wasn't an actual kid on the other end but it was a set up. so no actual kids were harmed in those situations but they are still charged .

same with drunk driving.

Different situations.

so the same is true with the drunk driver. actually driving while drunk. just like the pedo actually showing up to meet with the underage kid to have sex.

That's what you're looking for, right?


or maybe you're looking for an "alcohol should be illegal".

Only more questions and no comfortable answers. The drunk driver needs to be off the road and many deaths on the road are the direct result of alcoholism. There's no pretty way to wrap this problem and simple imprisonment is an irrational answer.

Many alcoholics don't drive and drink, yet they're still alcoholics, even when sober. Drinking makes you drunk, not necessarily an alcoholic.

But alcoholics, if they're aware that they're alcoholics can choose to drink and drive based on knowledge of the disease.

Also, many non alcoholics also drink and drive. Even in full knowledge that it's illegal.

I think if the medical community would change the concept of alcoholism as a disease by changing the word 'alcoholism' to 'addiction to alcohol' it would help deal with the issue. Addiction is the issue. The addiction to alcohol is as strong as the addiction to any other type of drug.

After one imbibes, the reasoning factor goes out the window. Previous decisions become moot.

an alcoholic. Or do whatever else illegal. If an alcoholic decides to rob a bank, it's o'key because he is sick. If an alcoholic decides to kill someone, well, you can't blame a sick person, can you?
Do you think being an alcoholic is a get out of jail free card?

I've known very severe alcoholics who still figured out that they shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car. If that's too much trouble, sell your car.

Excess drinking is dangerous.

and killed someone because of it, I would be responsible because I got behind the wheel in that state - or allowed myself to get into that state while driving.

It's not a crime to be drunk (or sick); it's a crime to go out and endanger others.

Punishment doesn't make a lot of ethical sense. You can't change the past by punishing someone, after all.

Otherwise a perp would do the same thing over and over again.

It would imply that we don't punish, say, old war criminals who aren't in a position to re-offend, or perhaps women who murder the man who was beating them.

Diseases involving the will or volition are insidious beasts. Alcoholism is among the worst of them.