2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

You said: "Additionally, you can't separate the drinking from the driving, because if you did there would be no crime. So if the disease of alcoholism leads you to drive a car you are indeed punishing the alcoholism, because the alcoholism is the primary component that led to the alleged crime."

*Having alcolism has nothing to do with the crime.  You can be drunk every minute of your life after you turn 21 and never break a law.  You only break the law when you drive after drinking too much.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

I got a DUI, and it was a fluke. I suppose I should state I didn't get into an accident, I was pulled over.

*Everyone calls it a "fluke".  Very few DUIs are due to accidents.

You are treated like an animal by the courts and the treatment program. I was assessed by a gruff women, who didn't have the acumen to make a hot dog.

*They don't have to be nice to you--you broke the law.

She sent me to a program geared towards alcoholics, when I wasn't one.

*The program isn't geared towards alcoholics, it is geared toward people who got a DUI.  And that would be you.

I had to sit around with other alleged alcoholics hearing about their plight with some wannabe social worker under fluorescent lights.

*Boo-hoo!  Poor little thing!  Those flourescent lights must have been traumatic!

It was a dreadful experience, that if anything would have turned me into an alcoholic had I let it. I protested and I think I was the only person in the group that didn't get sent for further treatment. I've never had a problem since---nor do I drink much at all.

*Good--maybe that means the treatment was effective.

I know people say that, but I actually mean it.

*Yes, everybody says it, and everybody means it.

*You drove while under the influence.  That is the only thing that needs to be true.

*It doesn't matter what you do to yourself.  When you endanger someone else, however, you are playing a whole different game.  And I, as a pedestrian, should have a right to not be killed by drunk drivers.

*Some people are not helped by treatment.  How many people should a person have to kill before going to jail?  2?  5?  10?

*Charles Manson has a disease that makes him crazy and want to kill people.  Yet he is in jail. 

*So should you be able to, say, murder babies at will when you are black-out drunk? Or would murdering babies be considered a crime whether you remember doing it or not?

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context