Patrick Kennedy, and Why Preferential Treatment Is a Bad Thing.

I have a confession which isn't going to win me many friends here on DU: I'm highly skeptical of Patrick Kennedy's "disoriented by prescription drugs" excuse.

I am well aware that we do not know if he was drinking. I suspect we probably won't ever know. I will even grudgingly admit that it is admirable that some of you are giving him the benefit of the doubt and accepting his explanation for what happened. You might turn out to be right -- In fact, I hope you are right. If we get conclusive evidence that you're right, then I will submit myself to 10 lashes with a wet noodle, right here in the General Discussion forum.

But I honestly don't believe him. There is a time where suspension of disbelief becomes too difficult, and this is one of those times. When I first read about the accident, I was actually laughing out loud because it made Patrick Kennedy look like a complete fool. And frankly, it makes me feel foolish to willingly suspend my skepticism and accept his excuse as fact.

Which brings me to my point.

Whatever happened on Wednesday night, I think it's pretty obvious that Patrick Kennedy got preferential treatment from the Capitol Police. If he was drunk, then that preferential treatment might just save his ass. But if he was loopy from prescription drugs, then the preferential treatment he received will probably be the worst thing that could have happened to him. Because if the police had given him a sobriety test, we would KNOW whether or not he was drunk. If a sobriety test showed that he really had NOT been drinking, then he wouldn't look like a fool and liar when he claims he was taking prescription drugs.

The bottom line is that preferential treatment in cases like this protects those who are guilty, and it screws those who are innocent.

it is the reason that people are either disgusted and or don't trust the law...because they have seen politicians, heiresses and heirs to large fortunes just walk away from crimes...that had they been committed by you or me...well we would be in jail.

However, we need not, as a country hyper-obsess on Patrick Kennedy's preferential treatment to the detriment of addressing more pressing National Issues.

Like IMO, that beautiful and patriotic American, Ray McGovern.

Nope, we all must, during our quiet moments, realize that those who hold increasing wealth and political power WILL continue to be preferentially treated. No argument with me there. ;)

many people here get a pass from law enforcement. There is definitely an element that is above the law. If I were the Republicans I would not try to make political hay over this.

edit: I'm also editing this after viewing some of the press frenzy this morning. From my own anecdotal experience of being a lifelong resident of the Washington, D.C. area, this is not unusual, however, I do believe that the unusual press attention is BECAUSE this happened to a Kennedy, and I think it's bullshit.

I grew up in NoVA and probably 3 or 4 times a year a story would come out talking about some mover and shaker (or their offspring) had done something and been given a pass.

The facts would be clear and it probably would have been better for everyone regardless of the outcome.

and I'm not diminishing this as an inconsequential act...I hate drivers under the influence.

ID'd him as having been drinking. Was driving while back home when I heard it on the radio....Hawk and Dove I think?

It's a political bar, and a lot of interns/staff assistants moonlight at places like that. Could definitely be a Republican dropping the dime there.

And for the record, I agree with Skinner's post completely.

defense?

I hate that jerk.

Better to have been upfront and convicted of drunk driving

If you were out drinking, somebody would have seen you.

If there is corroboration of this person, then he's SOL. Well, except that there's no evidence against him.

So much for rumors!

We have to call a spade a spade, lest we be just as bad as the people from that other site.

He should have ASKED to take the breat test if he was just on meds because he to know where this whole thing would go.

or a BAC if he had not been drinking. Given the family history, he *HAD* to know where this was going to go. A clean BAC would have nipped this in the bud. Now, it's going to dominate the news cycle for days to come.

if he thought he had to vote at 3:00 am, he wasn't thinking clearly enough to understand the ramifications. Whether that was from booze or pills, I don't know. But I don't think that the thing to blame him for is not asking for a test.

Was he there? If he was there, why did he not do a breathalyzer or whatever they do these days. Is he saying his superiors prevented it? If so, why does he want to turn on them?

As dicey as I find the convenient Ambien story (because I have NO sympathy for anyone who continued using it after the news came out), I am equally suspicious of this public-spirited public servant who feels the need to come forward with a drunk claim he cannot prove. In other words, at this time, it's pure slander. I need to know LOTS more about this whistle blower. Because whatever happens, whatever is finally proved, this Kennedy is now permanently tarred with Like father, like son.

as well. Holding everyone accountable for all of their actions is the only way to go.

Thanks Skinner

It would have been better for him to have been breathelyzed, and tested for drugs.. they would have found the AMbien and stomach meds in his system, and this would be a non-issue. The media is feeding on this because assholes can't seem to stop obsessing over his father's drunk driving.

- or the Enron-ed GDP (which apparently, according to republican economsists, should show a contraction, not growth).

- or the fact that the tax cut package they want to pass doesn't help the middle class.

- or the fact that Rumsfeld was caught in a lie yesterday by a nascent reality-based press.

Lots of things they'd rather we didn't discuss.

Like Son

..have to do with this?

And worse yet, it sets a precedent (or more accurately, continues a precedent) for such treatment, which is all too frequent in this country for a so-called democracy.

I wonder what rationale was used for not giving him a sobriety test?

What a disaster that could have been if it had cost a a senate seat and possibly control because of Kennedy's personal behavior.

with the original poster and maintain that consistency is very important-otherwise you have no credibility when you point out lapses in other people. I posted earlier than the ambien story smelled fishy and got blasted by other people here simply because I wouldnt buy what Kennedy was selling. Im glad im not alone in thinking that if he was drinking he should be punished like a regular person would be.

unfair. Period.

He deserves the bad press and whatever else happens as a result. I've no sympathy for him.

I think there is an interesting story here in how HE was treated and Cynthia McKinney was treated. I think they both were wrong-that is just a guess- and if they were they should pay whatever the normal price for said violation is.

how GOOD Patrick Kennedy vis How POORLY Cynthia McKinney was treated by The Capitol Police would bring up many very disconcerting undertones - sexism? racism? - the dissecting of which would only prove to be self-flagellating and destructive in the "hard feelings" generated though such a process. :( But yes underpants, quite an intriguing comparison. :hi:

do you want to post it in GD or should I?

:popcorn:

No way! I'm saddened by all the "good will" among Democrats that has been burned up - FOREVER! - due to arguments by people who should be working together.

Nope, I hope this will not replace the "rape issue" threads. It only provides amusement for the mean spirited Freeper trolls. Further, I regret each and every pissing contest that I participated in. :( I have promised myself to rise above such petty bickering over VERY EMOTIONAL LADEN issues.

Instead, I make the humble suggestion that we focus on what we can work together to achieve - UNITED - as Thoughtful and Compassionate Americans. We already have the nasty right wing working overtime at providing distractions and wedge issues to divide our ranks. Let's not do their job for them?

If she hadn’t whacked the cop there would never have been a story.

Had McKinney not been a member of Congress, she would have been in handcuffs within a minute after strikeing a police officer.

but we sure do on this point.
:hi:

alcohol. that is the problem with this. i was in an accident years ago. i hit a person on a bike. big deal. i wasn't drunk. they knew i wasn't drunk. and not only did they let me go, they came and checked up on me to make sure i was ok. do they arrest all that get in an accident just in case. if they know he did not have accident due to alcohol, didn't they just do what they do with everyone else? that is not preferential treatment. there would be something amiss if they knew he did not have alcohol in his body, yet they tested, or arrested him anyway, to confirm story for naysayers.

hence the dilemma

on edit: i am reading in this thread they are coming out with evidence he had been drinking. THAT changes my whole post if he had been drinking, of course

It's just one thing to check off in the event there is a conflict over events after the fact.

I'd like to think if I were Kennedy I'd have requested it just to clear myself.

would NOT run a test. to prove to the public. not how it works. not how it should work. and shame on us if we start insisting on this attitude

They can only believe. And much of the time that might be enough. Sometimes it's not.

If the police could KNOW if a person had been drinking, we wouldn't need the test.

can prove it at later time. to use the test without knowing, for confirmation, generally there is at least some piece of evidence that drinking has happened. if there is NO evidence, no smell, no evidentary evidence to show a possiblity of drinking, they do not pull out the test for people to take to see if......

probable cause.

clarify whether there's been drinking or not.

If it was used because the police KNOW someone has been drinking, no one would ever "pass" the test, which in fact does happen.

they run test and person passes. but there was a reason for them to run it. some suspecion, somewhere. to believe the person is disorienteed, sleep driivng, talking to kennedy, there experience in the situation adn buy the story, would not warrant a test. kennedy should have taken the test regardless if all at the scene KNEW he had not been drinking for the people that insist on it in this culture that refuses to stand for individual rights. lets body search all, put gloves on and search body cavaties, walking thru an airport. lets allow cops to stop all motorists and give breathilizers just cause.....

this just doesnt do it for me. really really doesnt.

i dont know hte story. i dont know if kennedy got preferential treatment. but i will pat cops on back if they KNEW he had not been drinking and handle the situation as they stated. that is the RIGHT thing to do. i do NOT want to encourage our cop to stomp all over our rights.

fast, non invasive test.

Again, the police can't KNOW he wasn't drinking. If he was disoriented enough for the accident he was disoriented enough for the test.

maybe...... they do KNOW he was not drinking. which is my point. if they KNOW he was not drinking then they have an obligation to NOT run the test.


an epileptic driving erratically, has minor accident. they realize immediately he is epilectic..... are you suggesting they should run a drunk test? of course they are not going to. nor should they.

i dont know why the police decided not to run the test. it could be preferential, it could be because they saw no reason to. i will wait to find out. my gut tells me that with a kennedy they would tend to be against the man, and would do whatever if they felt necessary, including running a drunk test or arresting the man.

i dont know.

i will wait and see

And unless they can now scan alcohol content with their eyes alone, they can't KNOW someone did or didn't have a few drinks.

While they might be able to assess that someone is significantly under the influence, and while they can have an opinion about a more borderline case they actually can't KNOW without verification.

kennedy either), i will just have to assume they had no reason to believe he was drunk ergo didnt test, as they make that judgement call with all of us across the nation day in and day out.

without any other information, we should feel assured, we should feel better that our congressman was not drunk at the wheel. btw, did you see the picture. a real major accident i say in sarcasm. i got as bad pulling out of space at 2mph hitting a pole.

i just think we neednt assume kennedy did anything wrong. nor assume the capitol police see oh jolly gee a kennedy, we love that liberal ass family so much, we are going to cover up for him. seems to me is pure logic that wouldnt be the case with our capitol police.

again, i state, without knowing all the facts

just doesnt seem to be what others on this board are making judgment calls on

I agree we shouldn't assume anything because he's a Kennedy.

I do think it's unfortunate, knowing what we know now, that this issue is left unknown as it is.

Why did the police give him a ride home? He could have driven himself.

...and said that he was on his way to a vote at 3:00 am. I don't think any reasonable police officer could possibly not think he was drinking. Given the congressman's odd behavior, a sobriety test should have been given.

Help me out here. I saw 3am and staggering after an accident but I didn't see anything about being guilty because he is a Kennedy??????????

he is a Kennedy? No problem. You can answer the question, or not. It's a (mostly)free country and I'm free to call you on bullshit.

...bullshit, you should know bullshit very well.

Textbook definition of: Vapid.

maybe dick cheney would have gotten a pass as well but I wouldn't like him to get preferential treatment either.

it it wheather or not the police treated him differently because he is a member of Congress.

have been treated this way besides Kennedy would be nice... Trying to make it like he is the only one who gets this type of consideration... On capitol grounds, I believe different rules apply..

the Capitol Police. If Cynthia McKinney hadn't been a member of Congress, she would have been in handcuffs within a minute of striking a police officer.

...and all of us reasonable people here on DU when you make statements like that.

Please stop, you're hurting our credibility here with statements like that...

If he didn't smell like alcohol, there would be little reason for a sobriety test. Far more important, under the circumstances, would be to take a disoriented person, who had been in a minor automobile accident, to a hospital. There would be a significant number of "rule outs" that medical personel should have considered.

I would note, for example, that Patrick's uncle John had an allergy to antihistamines that is not uncommon in certain populations. Patrick, if he indeed had taken more than one prescription medication, and was suffering from the synergism of them, really needed to be viewed by a doctor.

If by chance the medication story is fiction, as it could be, it presents other possibilities. But if it is true, and the reported circumstances would fit, then it was a gross error not to take him to a hospital immediately.

Somehow, I highly doubt that that is the case.

for booze. raising my hand here. what do you mean they automatically test for all accidents. that is ridiculous

But I wasn't staggering around, or telling the officer that I was late for a vote at 3:00 am in the morning. If I had been, I would fully expect him to give me a sobriety test rather than a free ride home.

That's soooo late... was he in pajamas?

If he was, then I could certainly understand why the cops didn't test him for booze. The sleep-driving phenomenon isn't exactly rare anymore, thanks to Ambien.

Yes, that's ridiculous. But that's not what I said. Good day. :hi:

strike me as nonsense.

I really am curious, though.

Geez... what's with people being so hostile around here lately?

Sad...

staggering. if they could smell alcohol then wrong of them not to test. but if they accessed and clearly felt it was the combination of drug, then they did the right thing driving him home. i gotta, i just gotta wait until more fact come out. and i really don't trust a cop that says he was staggering if there are other cops that disagree, because so many hate kennedy's i wouldn't be surprised of a smear. arrest for smear purpose isn't ok either

i am not a fan of mckinney, but i had to stay out of it waiting for information. gotta be the same on this. not being a sucker cause anything is possible. but i find it as hard ot believe a cop would give kennedy a break as much as his pill story. for them to drive him home instead of charging him with drunk driving confirms the retarded drug story for me more than a stupid story, probably drunk..... odds are.

i don't know what to make of this story. but if there was evidence that he had not been drinking, then cops did right, it was not preferential.

i don't know the facts. i don't know why they state he wasn't drinking, or even if that is their statement. seemed to be at one time. since different stuff has come out. kinda why i don't trust the capitol police anymore than kennedy not drinking.

i am in a quandary

The question then becomes, did Kennedy demand this treatment or was it standard operating procedure for members of Congress? If Kennedy was impaired, whether with prescription drugs or with alcohol, then he was not competent to operate a vehicle and this should have been investigated.

This sort of thing feeds tin-foil hat conspriacy theories. The law is the law and it needs to be obeyed. If Rep Kennedy had a bad reaction to medication, then that needs to be looked into. (It could actually help others who claim they have had problems with this medication.) But to just drive Kennedy home and not investigate is a very bad thing. It is not open and it feeds the view that some people are 'more equal than others' when it comes to following the law.

It's the officer's job to rule out alcohol... not just decide that it wasn't, and that they don't need to pursue that.

Even if you have not touched alcohol for 20 years, if you are driving while impaired from any drug you are eligible for a DUI.

If the officer feels you are impaired while driving, you can be charged with driving under the influence, even if it's an over the counter cold medicine.

I had a DUI 20 years ago and learned this in my classes, my lawyer confirmed it. At least in Illinois that is the case.

He was obviously impaired, alcohol or not. So even if he took a sobriety test or blew 0.00 for his BAC he could have been charged.

on edit, here is a clip on the DC DUI/DWI laws:

Washington D.C. DUI / DWI law makes it illegal to drive when under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08% or greater.

In the District of Columbia, DUI / DWI (or drunk driving) cases can be proved in one of two ways. Washington D.C. DUI can be demonstrated through the driving pattern, physical appearance of the driver, field sobriety test performance, and chemical test results. Each of these may be circumstantial evidence of mental or physical impairment, and consistent therefore with DUI.

http://www.1800duilaws.com/states/dc.asp

asked to take a breathlyzer..which he passed. Often times, these will be administered, for the protection of both parties involved.

it, but he was totally capable of driving and at legal limit?

i know they do not automatically run breathilizers on every accident victim. it just is not done, even to cross all t's and dot all i's

They run them fairly often here in MI, as a matter of liability. And, one can always refuse.

of behavior by the cops is what is pissing me off. possibilities, unlikely.... yet do it anyway. i don't like that. like treating me as a criminal walking into an airport, like, invading a country because of what might happen. i HATE hATe HatE this kinda mentality

And that's a good thing.

criminal. listening to our private conversation doesnt treat you as criminal, if you have nothing to hide, yada yada yada...... doing a body search does not treat you as criminal, if you are clean.....

i call bullshit on all that. in MY view, how I feel, yes it absolutely is treating you like criminal. i couldnt disagree with you more on your statement.

my view

On the license itself it says "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law.." I think every state has there own laws..

does have a drinking problem, he needs to be confronted or somehow be made to realize that he has a problem-- and fast, for his own sake and the sake of his family.

If this is a problem with Ambien (is that the drug? ) and any other prescriptions, then that needs to be addressed as well.

My only gripe is watching the media jump on this story after ignoring so much corruption in Washington all these years.

I mean considering the fact that it actually *affects us all*, possibly severely.

Oh wait, I should have said "allegedly" Enron-ed GDP... but since there are republican economists raising the alarm as well...

tapping, stacking the Supreme Court, lying, lying, lying... let's worry about something like this.

I take it on occassion for severe arthritis in my lower back.I take maybe 2-or 3, maybe 4 per month, only when absolutely necessary.

I DO know that when I take one, the day is finished. I'm not going anywhere near my car. I'm not taking care of any business. The day is finished.

And this is coming from a guy who wouldn't know how to drive a car sober.:evilgrin:

You probably don't need, nor would choose to be in a 12 Step Program, but we can only hope that Rush has a half-assed good Sponsor? Well, if he doesn't, let's hope he gets busted by popping positive on a drug test real soon. Talk about privileged treatment ... money can buy one some awesomely effective legal representation, aye?

Look at his genetic code.

To say nothing of reports that he was out having a few pops that night; and was alleged to have been seen at a couple of local bars earlier in the evening.

Odds are good, that even if he did go home, take his pills, and get into bed, AND everything happened as he said it did, he likely STILL would have blown a field sobriety test.

The preferential treatment is manna from heaven for the GOP. I'm not saying they had a hand in it, but it's the first good thing to come along for them in a long while. Expect them to make some hay while the sun shines. They can talk about a sloshed Kennedy instead of addressing the issues that really matter.

I only hope that if he is going in that direction that he get help...

"Look at his genetic code"?

"Alleged to have been seen at a couple of local bars earlier in the evening"?

booze and coke habit for YEARS that he has finally shook. Two substance abusing parents, oh, and if you were going for the Irish thing, Joan wasn't of that ancestry.

His genetic code, passed down by both of his parents who both had major issues with mood/mind altering substances, made him more susceptible to getting that genetic weakness. It HAPPENS.

MSNBC carried the story about him being at a couple of watering holes earlier in the evening. It likely was related to this report:

The Boston Herald reports that a hostess at a popular Capitol Hill bar, Hawk & Dove, told the newspaper she saw him drinking in the hours before the crash.

"He was drinking a little bit," said the woman, who works at the Hawk & Dove and would not give her name to the paper.

According to the Herald, a bartender at the Tune Inn, which is next to the Hawk & Dove, also said Kennedy was spotted in the Hawk & Dove Wednesday, but Hawk & Dove manager Edgar Gutierrez said he was working Wednesday night and did not see the congressman. The paper says Kennedy refused to say whether he had been at the bar. ...

Edited to add this info/link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/05/politics/main1590253_page2.shtml

Interesting, that's where the DU meetup was the night before the anti-war protest last September...

It's got a couple of little rooms so you can get away from the crush on busy nights.

that doesn't make me an alcoholic.

the official report not being released, the fact that this is yet another capitol police event..

I will agree that they should of performed a sobriety field test on him.

The fact is they didn't, and I doubt there is anything they can do but smear his name, but that seems to be working just fine now, doesn't it???

We cannot claim the high road and ask for Dubya and the rest of this corrupt bunch to be held accountable if in the next breath we say a Kennedy deserves preferential treatment. Kennedy should have been given a field sobriety test, as should have Cheney.

We Dems know that the Republicans don't have a lock on corruption, but they sure as hell are hiding the key that unlocks the door behind which the crooks are hiding.

We Dems, as part of our campaign platform, ought to say to the American people that we will have a bonafide ethics committee just for our party...and, that we will not tolerate or support any Dem who proves to be corrupt or who willingly violates the law and expects to get away with it.

"The party of integrity" ought to be a theme of ours. Transparent as polished glass.

...won't carry much weight in the face of what Kennedy seems just to *have* done.

But I certainly agree that ethic enforcement with teeth must be a priority. Transparency is the only thing that might save this sad excuse for a republic--well, that and the will to make corruption actually illegal.

Ambien, a widely-prescribed sleep medication, has been blamed by many individuals for incidents involving driving, eating, cooking and other actions that happened when the patients were supposed to be asleep – actions they later said they could not remember.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/05/politics/main1590253.shtml

on The View.

I believe she said something like " I woke up and didn't know where I was or what I was doing."

I was shocked when she said it because it was so innocent and she was really shaken.

I'll wait until the facts are known.

Pill or booze - Under the Influence is Under the Influence. Driving While Impaired is Driving While Impaired. Sounds like he confessed he was in no condition to drive. By his own words, he willfully and knowingly consumed a substance that impaired his driving ability, that, by hist own words, was a direct contributor to the accident. What would've been the reaction if it had been a person that he had hit? That's guilty.

I prefer to wait until all the facts are known rather than speculate.

tumor or epilepsy. Two wrecks in three weeks? Something is wrong here. But I do agree about the preferential treatment thingy.

Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter. Walking away from crash, in an obviously impaired condition, without arrest or even a sobriety check to verify his story is nothing but more special treatment for the rich and powerful. Justice is supposed to be equal for all in this country, and it is cases of preferential treatment like this that undermine the public's faith and trust in the government, and should be halted immediately.

I know that it is too late to do a check for alcohol now, but I'm wondering if it's too late for Kennedy to get a drug test, to show whether or not he has/had Ambien in his system, and how long it's been there. It isn't the ideal of testing him on the spot, but such a drug test would go a long way to backing up his story.

This medication has a SOLID history of f**king people up - in both an emotional and behavioral sense. However, those Drug Companies are always hesitant to own up. :(

said pot has not medicinal purpose.... :wtf:

In fact there are an increasing number of drugs out there that really have no business being out on the market. It seems like Big Pharma comes up with more and more "problems" that are now treatable with drugs. Last week I was watching TV, and some drug ad came on asking if you had excessively itchy legs. If you do, well Big Pharma had a drug to cure the problem, for big bucks and coming with nasty side effects. My solution, put some damn lotion on your legs:eyes:

I think that there has been an ongoing effort by Big Pharma to make hypercondriacs out of Americans. I realize that there are people with chronic sleep problems, but I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the vast majority of people who have problems getting to sleep and are currently taking a prescription med would fall asleep just as quickly if they had a hot toddy before turning in.

And frankly I find the whole idea of Viagra to be ridiculous. For the vast majority of men who are experiencing ED it is because two problems. Either their body is telling them that there is something wrong with their body, age, heart problems, etc, or that there is something wrong with their relationship.

I've found that the older I get, the less pills I take, simply because I no longer trust Big Pharma and their paid lackies at the FDA.

It was making me reeeeeaaallllly cranky. Like, punch someone in the mouth cranky.

I had a similar reaction a couple years ago when I took it but didn't put two-and-two together. At the time, I chalked it up to job stress. This time, I realized it was the ambien. It's been about two weeks and I feel TEN TIMES better.

That being said, the only time I had an adverse reaction was when I mixed it with alcohol. It wasn't completely intentional as I took one before bed and then decided to stay up and do some chores while sipping "Just one" cocktail.

I guess I spent the night "zombie dialing" old friends. Plus, I was in trouble with the boyfriend.

I got there.. I took it 5 times total, and the first 4 times I had no problems at all, the fifth time, I woke up on my back porch.. It was one of the scariest things I've been through. I was totally disoriented, and I didn't know what was going on. I had mosquito bites all over my body.. I have no idea how long I was on the table, but I had 15+ bites on my body. My SO went to bed at 1:00 after watching Leno, and I was in bed when he went to bed, and I woke up on the porch at 6 something.. I was on a sample pack, and had 2 left, and I just flushed them to be safe.. My Doc had 3 others that had awoken in weird circumstances too, and he said he couldn't just write it off as a fluke anymore..

myself without ambien I recieve next to NO Sleep.
Take it when you are in the bed already. Some people do not take this simple step in the first place.

But they assumed they were helping out a congressman.. but in fact, it hurt him. Ambien, if he indeed consumed a few drinks earlier in the evening (which is all rumor), and went home to bed after taking Ambien, would have Absolutely been an issue in this sleepdriving.

He did ask for no special treatment, but apparently that gets lost in his guilt....

Zombie drivers — motorists driving under the influence of the popular prescription sleeping pill Ambien, possibly while sleepwalking and unaware they are doing so — are a rising threat on U.S. roads, according to a report published in the New York Times Wednesday.

According to the Times, ten state toxicology labs that test for the presence of the drug rate Ambien among the top 10 drugs found in impaired drivers. In Wisconsin, Ambien was identified in the bloodstreams of 187 drivers arrested between 1999 and 2004, the newspaper reported. In Washington State, Ambien was found in 78 impaired drivers arrested in 2005, up from 56 the previous year.

Following their arrests, many of the Ambien drivers claim to have no recollection of getting behind the wheel, according to the report. In many of the cases the drug appears to have been taken incorrectly, combined with alcohol or other drugs or taken in overdose quantities; several of the cases suggest, however, that even when the drug is used properly, a sleepwalking side effect may lead to sleep driving, the Times reported.

In 2004, the FDA received 48 reports of “adverse events” involving Ambien without the use of other drugs, the Times reported. Those events included three sleepwalking cases, a traffic accident and six reports of hallucinations, the newspaper said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187230,00.html

It's the banality of privilege.

No reasonable person thinks that all (or even 10%) of the 'laws' that have been enacted are uniformly enforced or that there are enough police to even come close to enforcing them evenly. The police are put in the position of picking and choosing both when to enforce and against whom to enforce the plethora of laws enacted. When such is the case, we've gone a long ways toward a police state, imho. We're more and more awash in privilege, both de facto privilege and de jure privilege (i.e. entitlements), every day.

He might have shot someone in the face, that he had mistaken for a bird...

oh my....

...O...

a proper investigation after he shot his friend in the face. He admitted he'd had alcohol. We know he's on medication for his heart (a no-no mix) and he didn't bother telling anyone about it for AT LEAST 24 hours (perhaps 48).

Neither should have gotten preferential treatment.

Completely. I've been saying the same thing about the media. WE have to hold ourselves to higher standards than lying spinning scumbags for a variety of reasons, one - if we advertise ourselves as Journalists who toss inaccurate articles out there which get repeated in all the blogs then we are actually GIVING ammunition to the Right WING. They can all the more easily convince the Folks in media land that WE are LIARS.

Giving Kennedy preferential treatment is no different than letting Cheney get away with allegedly drunkenly shooting a man in the FACE.

ALL this talk of the Letter of the Law by the right while they BREAK them like twigs, will win us no respect from the public at large if we commit the same offenses and don't take our lumps.

I'm sure that the average american is OUTRAGED by things like this, they Jaywalk and pay big bucks, we want them pissed at Cheney and Bush for criminal acts unpunished NOT OUR GUYS.

Good call Skinner. Now for the proof, which may never come, as you said, no sobriety test, no problem. As far as I know, if I refused a sobriety test I would automatically LOSE MY LICENSE, as would most people.

when he was pulled over (as it's been reported). That 'he was on his way for a vote'. It almost sounds like an automatic response. One of those things federally elected official are told at orientation: 'if you ever get pulled over by the cops, the first thing to say is you're en route to federal business'.

That's where the red flags went up. Who knows? It may very well all be perfectly legit that it was due to a bad combination of medications. It wasn't too long ago there were news stories about Ambien doing some weird side-effects to a few people...weird and dangerous things.

I just hope we get all of the facts.

..by avoiding, somehow, a sobriety test.

He got preferential treatment; that much is certain. And the opportunity to check his story is lost forever.

the right to hound him, and all Democrats by association, throughout this election cycle. Speculation can be so much worse than actual fact. It would have been much better for the truth to come out, whatever it may have been, and deal with it immediately.

...excuses that he did all that was asked of him by the police, Kennedy should have instead demanded an immediate sobriety test--if only to short-circuit the whispers that will forever dog him in his political career.

When he was too impaired to drive or read a clock.

...within hours of the incident. If he's forthright enough to talk about his prescribed medication, he's open enough to submit to a blood analysis. Virginia is an implied-consent state, anyway, so this should have happened if the officers on the scene even suspected impairment.

A wise, innocent and unimpaired politician would have wanted to nip speculation in the bud as quickly as possible.

THIS is one of the reasons I'm a Dem. When Bill Clinton lied, we may have collectively thought the investigation was bogus, but we still all accepted the fact that he did, indeed, lie.

And when one of our own gets preferential treatment by police? We say that it isn't right.

I also think he was most likely drinking heavily -- but I doubt he asked for special treatment and I do believe that ANY of the Reps or Senators in that position would have received the same treatment. I don't care who they are, the Capitol police probably would have stepped in, in my opinion. And that's wrong. If it had been me, then my happy butt would have been sleeping it off in the drunk tank and I would have had to take a sobriety test. He should have as well...

I don't care if he is a congressman or a democrat, if he was drunk, he shouldn't be driving.

It blows my mind when rich people, who can afford to hire a chauffer, are caught driving drunk. In Detroit, Bill Bonds is a good example of that.

make a judgment, but I do know what the effects of Ambien can be like.. I took one once, and I woke up on my back porch on a picnic table.. I have no idea what I did, or how I got there, but I woke up on the picnic table.. I don't know what to believe yet, but I know that stuff can cause some crazy stuff.. After I reported to my doctor what happened he told me had 3 other patients that ended up in precarious positions due to Ambien, and that he no could longer just write it off as a fluke.. I don't know what to think yet..


on edit- Just for clarity, I took the same pill 5 nights in a row, and the fifth night was when I woke up on the porch.. I didn't have a bad reaction the first 4 times I took it, but something happened on that fifth night.. I had 7 pills in the trial packet my Doc gave me, and I flushed the remaining two, because I didn't want to chance it again.

(its just humor... :) )

I saw the report on the news and I knew this could not be good. I'm sick of preferential treatment from both sides.

But one thing nobody is bringing up here: it doesn't matter whether he was on alcohol or Ambien, he clearly was Driving Under the Influence.

You don't have to take a breathalyzer to be arrested for DUI. Anything that impairs you while driving whether it is alcohol, illegal drugs, over the counter medicine, or a prescription can meet the definition under the law for DUI.

He admitted to being under the influence ("a combination of prescription medicines") and crashed into a wall. He should have been issued some kind of citation, if not DUI, reckless driving if nothing else.

I really think we need to hear from the police supervisor who made the call. Some unnamed, low level cops are whining, and some GOP unseen hand is beating the drum for them, but the SUPERVISOR was the one who made the decision to release him. The Cap Police SUPERVISOR--that's his job, to make those decisions. Did he call the House physician and verify the prescriptions? Did he take into account the fact that the lights on the car weren't on, and perhaps the guy WAS sleep-driving? Maybe he saw something in the dashcam footage that made it clear that this wasn't your standard drunken congressman.

I'm betting that everything that has come out is more or less true. He did go have a pint or two at the Hawk 'n Dove, he did go home, he was probably not plastered and got there safely, he did take his ambien and stomach meds, and maybe took them BEFORE he got into bed....and there ya go; big mistake. Add it all up, and it spells trouble. Those AMBIEN moments can be quite troublesome.

Why would Fraternal Order of Police Union officials be making all the comments?

Why there is no statment from the Acting Police Chief?

Why the acting union head was also making comments?

Why was the police "chain of command" violated. If the officers had a bitch it goes upstairs not outside.

Why are all these people who were not on the scene making all kinds of comments?

Why haven't the Capitol Police released a statement....other than its under investigation.

what time was he stopped? what was he wearing?

If this is Ambien related... perhaps the cops didn't test him because he was in his pajamas?

Something to consider... we'll see how it comes out.

If this had been a Republican Congressman I doubt we would see as many defenders. We will need to see more, but the fact he wasn't given a breathylyzer test makes me highly suspicious.

There have been posts by DUers in this thread about their own experiences on the drug. It's something that you need to read up on before you think people are simply defending the guy for being a democrat.

Lots of drugs do...what doesn't smell right is that this is the cause of the crash. I will wait and see, but this looks like too many other cases when prescription drugs are trotted out as the excuse...and it does not look good that a breathalyzer was not performed.

19 years ago, I was arrested for DUI. As part of the penalty, I had to attend a school for 6 weeeks. I met a young fellow at the school who had also been arrested for DUI BUT IT WASN'T ALCOHOL! He had taken some prescription drug. The term DUI means driving UNDER THE INFLUENCE but does NOT only mean alcohol, it means anything that is determined to impair your driving ability!

the fellow was sooo upset becuse he was a tee-totalling fundy, and people now thought he had been drunk!

Yes, Patrick got better treatment than any of us would have, BUT I also heard reports last night that this is SOP with the Cap Hill cops. When they stop someone who is a Rep or Sen, they are quietly driven home. Wether you agree or disagree with that process is a different subject. I really do think this is getting preferential treatment in the media BECAUSE he is a Kennedy!

They would of done the same thing for any politician in that condition.. The fact his last name is Kennedy is enough of a reason to make this news and of course the right does have it's reasons for wanting to see this story on the front page... It takes away from their actions and their accountability....

He has had other public embarrassments before if I remember correctly. Didn’t he have some sort of blowup at an airport, and there was something about damage to a rented boat.

that intoxication is intoxication and it doesn't matter what it's from.

If he's driving while on medication that warns against driving - it is not an excuse to say it wasn't alcohol.

I think that actually would tend to diminish his culpability here.

And let's hope that's the case, because it's starting to seem we could stand to see that drug yanked.

they are driving - that sounds like a lawsuit to me - against the manufacturers.

In Kennedy's case - it could be big bucks for the problems it did to his credibility.


I'm surprised the drug hasn't been yanked already. A few multi-million dollar lawsuits might do it.

I believe it, but I am very skeptical as well because I know it will be our drunk Cheney.

We all make the claim that Mr. Cheney was drunk. Now, Mr. Cheney did put someone in the Hospital for a week, but when it comes down to the evidence I think it is the same kind of thing. There is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove what he said. The same will be true for Kennedy.

Kennedy might be able to prove his case a little better, since he has prescriptions for the drugs he said he was on. From outward signs, it just doesn't seem like any other evidence is available, but eyewitness testimony.

preferential treatment and then say, "We Dems have to get to work on the nation's business such as solving the War in Iraq and huge debt issues created by the Republicans, as well as solutions to health care, education and environmental problems."

Also, "We need to focus on issues facing the nation and not on a problem one representative has. The Republicans have many members who have been indicted or are in legal jeopardy for corruption, themselves."

Irresponsible behavior should not be excused based on political affiliation.

It's never right, no matter who benefits.

I wonder how often things like this happen... how many times it's because the person is connected or rich, or because they're a friend of the officer, because they're attractive...

known better - drugs that can affect driving are plastered with labels indicating such. I'd rip a Republican for such a lame excuse, so I'm not going to give Kennedy a pass over this either. What you said about him looking like a fool and a liar is spot on, and what really irks me is the arrogance required for him to assume we'd buy such bullshit. For all the effect it had, he really could have just come out and said "Listen, you stupid fuckers, I got away with it." I'd have had more respect for him.

It's not the same as "driving under the influence of prescription drugs". There have been many reports of patients on Ambien, waking up and finding themselves fully clothed and driving down the street toward.. work or whatever.. then having no recollection how they got there. It's been reported on the news, it's in the newspapers. He's not abusing prescription drugs, he's not driving when he shouldn't have been. Sounds like he came home, went to bed, took his Ambien and stomach meds, and found himself driving in the middle of the night.

links for you and everyone not understanding this issue:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/eveningnews/main1384884.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11726645/

"took his Ambien and stomach meds, and found himself driving in the middle of the night," and since I didn't believe anything I heard to begin with I didn't follow it further. Now that I've heard this, I'm even less inclined to believe Kennedy. If you believe him, more power to you, but spare me the condescending tone. I still stand by everything I said about arrogance. If it were Ambien, anyone with brains would have insisted on a test to clear himself on the spot. He took advantage of preferential treatment and got taken home, probably because he was drunk.

I was given it when my mother was dying as I could not sleep. It did not really help me get to sleep (4 hrs. maximum). It was giving me horrific nightmares/hallucinations. Needless to say, I don't take it any longer.

I also noted that when taking Ambien, I "woke" up more than one time finding myself with no clothing on in the dead of the winter and another time I woke up and had 3 layers of clothing on! :wtf:

It is in my medical record now that I cannot take Ambien as it causes "hallucinations". And that is a fact.

:kick:

by police last year for erratic driving and it turns out she had taken prescription drugs and had alcohol at lunch. She refused to take the alcohol test, they had it on video. She was able to do that too. She is still our attorney general.

Doctors will advise you not to take those prescription drugs and drive, so in my opinion it is equivalent to driving and drinking.

and waited til the next day to avoid a sobriety test.

Accepting special treatment is not quite as egregious as orchestrating it.

Didn't you know that's the rule of law in America? :sarcasm:

..so to speak. It's been documented that the sleeping drug causes people to drive, cook, walk out of their house, etc. I wish they had given him a sobriety test, because it would have shown he was not drunk. You need to do some research on the sleeping pill issue that's going on right now. AMBIEN is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to sleepwalking.

I think the preferential treatment, which probably happened, is the hook to hang the REAL story on, and the real story is "SEE!! DEMOCRATS are just as guilty! Republicans may be taking backhanders, selling their legislative services, lying under oath, outing undercover spies, starting illegal wars and fixing elections...but DEMOCRATS are caught driving drunk and then not investigated fully! There's nothing to choose from between them, so you might as well call it a draw and vote Republican."

He should have been taken to a hospital and drug tested. That said, if he did in fact take Promethazine (phenergan) and Zolpidem (Ambien) his behavior behind the wheel would likely have completely mimicked drunk driving. Unfortunately, Ambien is a hypnotic and some people do sleep walk and even sleep drive under the influence. It is rare, but not unheard of. It still would have benefited everyone involved for him to be taken to a hospital for a full blood based drug screen, including benzodiazapines and phenergan levels as well as alcohol levels. If he had been drinking and took both of those medicines with it, his life was somewhat in danger (think Karen Ann Quinlan). Taking him home in that situation potentially threatened his life and certainly made his political life tougher.

This was not handled appropriately and it is not useful for either side, nor for the health of Mr. Kennedy that it was treated as it was.

I was skeptical when I read about this in the WaPo this morning. When it comes to the truth I am not a liberal or conservative, I am an American who believes the only way to be a good citizen is to seek and embrace the truth, even if it stings.

If it turns out Kennedy was intoxicated, we all know the Republicans will add this eto their liteny of Kennedy family horrors (but wouldn't we if the Kennedys were conservatives?).

Fairness dictates that we give Patrick, or anyone, the benefit of the doubt, but not suspend our skepticism.

The drug is dangerous. I took it a few years ago prior to back surgery and had no untoward effects, perhaps because of the severe pain I was in and the fact that my activity levels were limited anyway. I took it this past fall due to sleeping difficulties and the effects were severe and I had a terrible reaction to it.

That said, it appears from what I read and have seen, the fact that he got preferential treatment was not at the request of Kennedy but came from brass within the department. There are conflicting reports from the Hawk and Dove with the hostess saying she saw him and a bartender saying he didn't see him...since the bartender serves the booze and the hostess doesn't, it is possible he was not drinking. Ambien causes severe disorientation and does impare judgement.


If your basic point is only that preferential treatment is bad ( as your comment concerning the bottom line states), I agree. But on the scale of preferential treatment being afforded in DC right now, this one is very low on the totem pole. We have a president who lied about going to war, false evidence having been presented to the UN, a counter intelligence agent being outed and her work destroyed for which there has been no formal congressional investigation of the president, his aid who has yet to be indicted, 750 events where the president believed he was above the law....among many other offenses. Certainly the preferential treatment involved in these offenses outweighs a guy who hit a concrete block. As yet, I've not seen any reports wherein officers claimed his breath was ethanolic...a sure sign that a sobriety test would have been in order.

all that text and no talk about how a Dem gets in a fender bender the night after starting a new med and CNN talks about it 15 minutes every half an hour? When the DSM would get nothing for months after months? When the coin scandal in Ohio has gotten nothing? They wouldn't talk a lick about DeLay until he was indicted. They won't point out when the President lies to our faces everyday as thousands die in Iraq. They won't talk about the prostitution ring run by Republican congressmen, but when a Dem gets in a fender bender or has an altercation with a cop, suddenly WASHINGTON IS IN A STAND-STILL!!!

Hello? Enron-ed GDP?

Boots on the ground in Iran?

The latest unemployment numbers? (so not good)

The tax cuts that don't help the middle class, let alone the poor?

etc. etc. etc.


They're shameless. Shameless.

And somehow... SOMEHOW... some people persist in wanting to believe the media is 'liberal'.

*sigh*

of Republican scandals that have been more grievious than this non-story by orders of magnitude.

whether psychological, or alcohol or prescription drugs -- for which he needs some help. It's sad.

wednesday night/thursday morning...

Would you consider that a "prescription drug problem"?

are not as understanding......

edit to add link


Read about Ambien side effects


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1108329&mesg_id=1108329

Because you're so quick to judge this guy, yet you have not even addressed the issue of the sleeping pill he took before he found himself driving. I've posted links in a post below for the uninformed. It's scary stuff and totally plausible. He did not ask for preferential treatment. It would have been better if they had breathelyzed him, because it would give credence to his claim about the sleeping pill.. for which he had a prescription, and which causes MANY people to sleep-drive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11726645/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/business/08ambien.html?ex=1299474000&en=17cf99894f297014&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/eveningnews/main1384884.shtml



There... hopefully that can clear up things for some people posting here today. I have no way, nor do any of us, of knowing if this was indeed the case. But Kennedy's defense is completely plausible... these stories are frightening. He is being trashed here at DU because even DUers are buying into the "Ted Kennedy the drunk driver" mentality, without reading Kennedy's statement, nor understanding that Ambien (which he will be shown to have as a prescription), could have been the culprit. Drunk drivers rarely drive around saying they "have to get to a vote". He probably believed he was getting up for work and heading to the Capitol. Totally plausible given the reports of Ambien's side effects...

pill? Is that somehow better than getting behind the wheel after drinking a six-pack?

And I don't know about anyone else as I just started posting about this a few minutes ago, but in my mind Ted Kennedy has nothing to do with this. If people on this board want to try the son for the crimes of the father (if there were crimes, don't know, not arguing about that), then they're wrong, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1108329&mesg_id=1108329


edited to correct link

:P

:hi:

and we don't know that it is for sure, then we have an entirely different situation. We also don't know for sure if and how much he might have had to drink. This many unknowns means we can't jump to conclusions.

If it turns out he knowingly did the wrong thing then he needs to be punished in the same way any of us would be punished. In all honesty, though, we'll probably never know for sure what really happened.

drop some Ambien and you have an excuse?!

We all know, even if we don't want to admit it, that if this exact thing had happened to a Republican we'd every one of us be up in arms about it today. It would be dead wrong for any of us to allow party affiliation get the in the way of what is right and wrong. If he was over the legal drinking limit, it was wrong for him to drive and he should receive the same punishment anyone else would get.

How long did it take to find out Cheney had freaking shot a man after drinking?

However, that doesn't make what Patrick Kennedy might have done any better.

is kinda not true, since by all historical evidence, it'd be buried a while longer.

:hi:

:hi:

:hi:

Sorry... just can't ever miss a chance to point out how un-liberal the media is.

You know who's reading, and who knows... maybe one of them will see the light one of these days. :)

And it's terrible that we have to fight these battles while people are dying. :(

I dearly hope one or two of those reading will see the light one day. Even that many will make all this worth it.

hill get this kind of treatment?

Do we know they only did this for Patrick Kennedy?

How are we basing this claim of special treatment, as opposed to who else on the hill, or as opposed to the average american citizen?

This seems to be a recurring theme around here anytime one of the publics' representatives gets into some kind of jam.

People want to equate these people that sometimes represent millions, as if they're exactly the same as average Joe sixpack.

Last time I checked, average Joe sixpack represents no one save for himself.

The problem is not arrest immunity, The problem is placing people in the position of being representative who are not of high moral character. The problem is also not providing them special outlets to deal with their indiscretions in a manner that's both legal and not an impediment as it pertains to official duties.

Why should a million people be forced to forfeit a floor vote because their representative has to be in a court somewhere to defend themselves from matters that are less than felony?

ALL, every last one of them, already has option of waiving immunity when they feel they are in the wrong, and that's where the moral character comes in.

I think more would cop to minor things if they could be assured the system would not impede them at some future inopportune date as they work through the problem. But that option is nonexistent at present.

That is why the problem is not the arrest clause itself. The problem is there will always be opposition, and that the law enforcement system itself can be used as a tool of impediment.

Until there is remedy that is free of impediment while they serve as representative, The arrest clause should stay as is.

I agree more should waive right, admit guilt if they truly are in the wrong, and dispense with the matter as quickly as possible http://www.c-span.org/questions/week145.asp...but almost anything above infraction requires a court appearance.

Sometimes the opposition doesn't want the matter to go away quickly so as to sentence the perp to everlasting supposition, punditry and public flogging.

Which is worse? admitting guilt and paying the debt in some way, without court. Or claim immunity and let the whole thing flop in the wind.

Give them the option for the prior and more would take that offer.


Kennedy's car

himself a good lawyer! ;-)

How many of the Duke Lacrosse team supporters think that Kennedy was drunk?

He and his family have earned preferential treatment. He didn't hurt anybody. In damaged his own car. This is a blip on the radar screen. In a few months no one will have remembered this incident. I'm not going to loose sleep over whether he had a sobriety test or not.

either way. They are determined to have a SPECTACLE, and it would be a total SPECTACLE with cameras rolling (dashboard and Homeland security) of KENNEDY doing the 4 or walking the line. It's a damned-do/damned-don't: This way, though robbed of their perp tests, the wingnuts get to claim preferential treatment---taking the heat off of LIMBOsevic and the other wingnut scandals. But since they're on record as backing us into corners as they always do, saying that we show little "liberal charity" towards poor wingnuts-who-need-rehab, they can't very well RIDICULE A KENNEDY?----------HAH! I can hear HANNITY doing hiccups right now.

My thoughts exactly. If Patrick Kennedy were a Republican that we loathed, people would be calling for his head. We need to just let this one play out in the courts, and Mr. Kennedy should accept the consequences of his actions, whatever they were.

whether he was driving under the influence of alcohol OR prescription drugs, he was still driving under the influence. The vehicle code in California, and I am sure in DC too, is very clear about that

I hate preferential treatment just because you are well connected and high born... I don't care what the last name happens to be. It was wrong in the case of Chenney and it was wrong in the case of Patrick Kenennedy.

In most of the places I've lived the charge has been DWI: Driving While Impaired or DUI: Driving Under the Influence with the question of what was causing the impairment or influence left open.

Is that we our all for fairness and accountability.

Because, we do NOT put party above personal responsibility and accountability.

c'mon, now . . . that's pretty much a major part of their job, isn't it? . . . to keep the kiddies in line? . . . and when the kiddies cross the line, to bail their sorry asses out? . . . and, whenever possible, keep the press at bay? . . .

that's what they DO! . . . it's one of the perks of being a Member of Congess, don'tcha know . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1108407
Maybe we need to doublecheck what W's stenographers report on OUR people before passing judgement.
Was Colbert funny? Did Patrick total a car? Were there WMDs in Iraq? you get the idea.

agree with you

I think Dems could score some political points not by defending Kennedy, but by showing how they oppose preferential treatment, while Cheney gets a pass for waiting 24 hours to talk to police after a shooting incident.

Okay so it's not an excuse but just who, when and where gets to decide to end preferential treatment for these illustrious politicians? Or do we get to grandfather it in and go after all who didn't take a breathalyser test? Let's just be fair about this.

There is a difference. The guy ticketed for speeding who whines that because so many other speeders do not get caught, he too should be given a pass, he is asking for fairness.

Fairness is impossible, some people will simply get away with things. Obviously this man has a history and I understand that he has checked back into rehab.

Skinner is right, Kennedy got a pass. It does not matter if he was under the influence of prescription drugs or analgesic sedatives (alcohol). So dump the conspiracy theories about KKK Karl and the republicans orchestrating the entire discussion of his drinking, as it matters little what drug was influencing him. He got over and he shouldn't have. An earlier post was right on, the democrats will get more out of this by not going out of their way to defend him. An attack on Kennedy is not an attack on democrats, it is an attack on "a" democrat. The dems should take a principled position on this.

Kennedy looks bad regardless and could not look much worse if he blew over .08. I doubt it was his choice not to blow, the old guard of the capitol police always protect the political royalty, of either party.

Frank

I have read a lot about people who have had sleepwalking episodes while using the prescription. There have been many reports of people getting up in the middle of the night and going for a drive thinking it was time to go to work. Many of those incidents resulted in accidents while some did not. Some people would go to the kitchen and make themselves a snack or have sex and remember nothing about it the next day.

I do know what it is like to wake up while still under the effects of Ambien. I have not had an episode of sleepwalking but I have had cases where I would wake up in the middle of the night while the drug was still heavily effecting me (usually my son crying wakes me up. There isn't much else that will after taking Ambien.) When I wake up under the effects of the drug I am completely disoriented and my thoughts do not make much sense. Sometimes I may even slightly hallucinate. I have changed my prescription to Lunesta recently in the hopes that it will be a better medication though I have not had the chance to try it yet. My point in posting this is simply to say that these types of acts are happening frequently with the drug Ambien. As it becomes more widely prescribed I can only see it happening more. I do not think we can be skeptical when someone has an incident with this medication. I understand being skeptical when someone has a history of doing things like this. But, he drove into the capitol. That sounds a lot like other examples of people driving after taking Ambien. Most of the stories I heard involved people getting into their car to go to work or do something else they regularly do during the day and that is consistent with this story.

Powell was asked how all these High Profile heavy hitter in DC handle the stress, and how do they get the sleep they need when they need it, Powell said that EVERYONE was using Ambien, it was THE drug of choice.

Nice to know that ALL these people, perhaps the idiot who's followed around by a guy with the "football", the machine that potentially could DESTROY the planet with NUKES is/was taking a drug that makes you HALLUCINATE.

I've been taking pain killers as supplied by the Veteran's hospital since '95, and one thing I found out is that you CANNOT DRINK ALCOHOL, not just that it destroys your liver, but also that it so AMPLIFIES the effects that you get out of control, waaaay out if not careful..

I haven't had a single drink in over two years since I'm taking pain meds and do not want to get Fried.

Why would someone who's going to take a drive, just to go home or whatever (tho he claims he was going to go VOTE WHILE COOKED TO THE GILLS?), take AMBIEN before he does either, vote or drive?

And he's talking about checking into a drug treatment plan for addiction, now HOW do you KNOW you're "addicted" if you've been prescribed the pills the DAY BEFORE? ONE DAY, and you're addicted?

Doesn't pass the smell test.

treatment for. That was just a medication for a stomach problem, not the Ambien. He's saying he has an addiction to painkillers that goes back at least to Christmas.

We may never know - but we do know how the RW will spin it.

Yet again this board is passing judgment based on "I get the feeling.." or in this case "I honestly don't believe him."

When we, of all people, refuse to respect due process we encourage the trend of stating opinions as though they are facts. And that sucks.

lying? So you're going with your gut on this one. Weren't folks like you being parodied by Colbert at that press dinner last weekend?

What I think is: We need to stop being part of the trend of putting people on trial in the court of public opinion, and start being models of withholding judgment while respecting the Justice System. In other words, the polar opposite of the Dittohead types.

problem shut your mouth. Ambien has been known to have reactions in people and they sleep walk and or hallucinate. It is very important that you know what your taking and how they react with each other. You can have problems with other medications and sometimes the reaction can land you on the floor anywhere. Diabetic have to be very careful too. Too little insulin or to much insulin at any given time can put you out of commission. Just be careful and if you think he got special handling just look at the others that got better treatment because they are repuks.

It's been too long and it's been spun (by both sides). All I can say is this:

If it was you or me, we'd have been tested, not given a ride home at taxpayer expense.

to a rich white kid that had attended a prestigious university funded by his parents. Oh wait.