Alcohol

The Coffee Shop
1

Alcohol is a legal drug in this country. At one point, we Constitutionally banned it. That didn’t work. But what to do about it? An article for your consideration.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090318/NEWS04/903180408/1118/PRINT

The article is about a local woman who crashed into and killed 4 local teens. She was drunk. Interestingly, cops were at her house 2 hours prior to the crash and told her not to even think about driving. Clearly, she didn’t listen to them. It is worth knowing that this woman was not the reason that the cops were at her house, they were there on a domestic abuse call for her roommate and boyfriend.

The problem with the above story is that what are police supposed to do? They had no reason to arrest the woman prior to driving her car. You can be drunk in your own house, it is not a crime.

This past weekend, we had a 911 call at work for a woman who was assaulted at a bar. She walked home and called it in. She was totally hammered. Of course, she was “with it” enough to concoct a (rather unbelievable) story about her (phantom) babysitter that left the home upon hearing of the assault. So this woman had left her 7y/o and 2y/o at home alone so she could go to the bar and get blitzed. At least she wasn’t driving I guess.

Mitch Albom does a pretty good job in Sunday’s column of expressing the issue:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903220428

So what do we do?

I know most people who drink can do it responsibly. But clearly some can’t. Our penal system can’t afford the “locking up and throwing away the key” approach. I’m pretty conflicted in this. I see the worst side of alcohol, so I am pretty biased. I do have an idealistic American attitude though. I believe in freedom. The problem is that in this case one person’s freedom cost the lives of 4 innocent teenagers.

Bernie

2

I see the worst side of alcohol

You’re not seeing the worst side of alcohol…you’re seeing the worst side of people. Put the blame where it belongs, not in some inanimate object or substance.

3

Bernie,

This is a tough one, and I think it is easy to let emotion come into consideration. However, I try to separate the person’s level of sobriety and consider their actions. If the woman is responsible for killing the 4 teens, and it was not an accident, then she should be punished regardless of her level of intoxication. Whether she was drunk and was not able to react quickly enough to avoid the teens, or whether she was extremely tired and nodded off at the wheel, or whether she was very upset and was thinking about something else, the fact is she is responsible for 4 deaths and should suffer the consequences.

Again for the woman who left her children at home, whether she did it so she could go have a few drinks or go shopping for a new dress, the situation of kids home alone was the same. I’m not sure of the legality of these actions, but it at least appears to be very irresponsible.

So, my approach is to look at the actions and not how much alcohol the person may have consumed.

4

I agree with you.
The same way guns do not kill people (note: I do not own a gun and I am not pro gun).

Fred.

5

**You’re not seeing the worst side of alcohol…you’re seeing the worst side of people. Put the blame where it belongs, not in some inanimate object or substance. **

Fair enough. I misspoke.

I should have written that I see the worst sides of the effects of alcohol on people. I do not know the woman involved in this accident, but reportedly she is an entirely different person when she is drinking. I think this is true for many people who have a problem with alcohol.

Bernie

6

I agree with you.
The same way guns do not kill people

I agree with the idea that “guns do not kill people, people kill people.” But I am not sure there is a good analogy with guns and alcohol. When used, especially for an addict, alcohol can and does change the behavior of the user. This is legally recognized as well. I do not think the same is true of a gun. By putting a gun in someone’s hand does not change them (and I don’t want to split hairs here by making some argument that a person will feel safer, stronger, more aggressive, blah, blah, blah; whch cthen changes a recreational shooter into a cold-blooded killer).

Bernie

7

but reportedly she is an entirely different person when she is drinking…

… I think this is true for many people who have a problem with alcohol

Undoubtedly.

8

"You’re not seeing the worst side of alcohol…you’re seeing the worst side of people."

let’s substitute for a currently “illegal” substance.
You’re not seeing the worst side of marijuana…you’re seeing the worst side of people
**
here it is again with a totally legal substance.
You’re not seeing the worst side of cigarettes…you’re seeing the worst side of people
**
You’re not seeing the worst side of snuff & chewing tobacco…you’re seeing the worst side of people
**
not so sure i totally agree with the statement that the problem is people and not alcohol. IMO some people are going to be alcoholic before they even take one drink. just like some people smoke once and after that one smoke they’re on for life.

while smoking may not be cause to have to lock people up in prison, it is substance abuse, just like alcoholism. and i don’t think the problem is people, i think the problem is the addictive nature of these products. beyond that, it is the nature of addiction, which our society is plagued with. frankly, i think that is bigger than people.

if one removed alcoholism from the equation of problems in society, it would no doubt wipe out a huge percentage of those problems.
**
but if there was no alcohol, would people find another substance to abuse?

**

**

9

As with many other areas of the country OWI is a huge issue right now in WI. I also see people at their worst. Everybody wants something to be done, but when it starts to infringe on their “freedom” to do what they want or drink as much as they want people often change their tune. In WI there is push to start going after the bars and bartenders who over serve their patrons. This just happened in MIL. where they closed the bar and suspended the bartenders. The problem here is that the tavern league has a huge lobby in state gov’t. We need to start putting people away who have multiple OWI’s, and I mean 4,5,6 and beyond. Our penalties max out at your 5th OWI and that is when it becomes a Felony. The max you can get is 3yrs in 3yrs out and rarely do they get that on their 5th. There needs to be change starting at the top. We (L.E) can take them off the roads but unfortunately we are re-active vs pro-active and many times we are to late. If we switch to being proactive this is where the bar owners are going to start crying foul.

10

consider that someone doesn’t have the freedom to be so drunk in public they cannot stand up. let alone get behind the wheel or snowmobile.

if the bartenders aid this type of drinking, i think they should be held liable. there needs to be accountability, IMO, it’s too expensive and dangerous otherwise.

if you think about it, the bartenders, the patrons, it is all a big heap of dysfunction. sad but true!

11

I agree. We really need more laws, more Govt. and more supervision.

12

You are hitting on exactly some of my concerns (and kittycat too). Many people want everyone’s freedoms restricted except their own. This becomes especially true when someone else has the “freedom” to make a bad mistake which results in an accident that affects them.

I suppose we could accept a fatalistic approach whereby we just accept the losses that occur (punished for sure) as a result of our freedom. We will moourn, but when our time to be affected is up, that is just the way it goes. Personally, I don’t think this is good, but it is possibly the end game.

As you well know, proactive policing is effective but difficult and expensive. At times you have to be everywhere which is impossible. Even punishing businesses after the fact is expensive (lawsuits, appeals, etc.).

Punishment is funny. From a psychological perspective it is not very effective at changing behavior. I think its real goal is to serve as justice for society. But to make a change, which is what I think is required in this case, punishment is not the answer.

Bernie

13

but if there was no alcohol, would people find another substance to abuse?

Absolutely, take alcohal out of the mix, and you can insert anti-freeze, model glue, spray paint, mouth wash, or almost anything else that will give someone a buzz and may or may not kill them on the spot. People who need this escape will find it regardless of the substance they’re using to make it happen.

14

let’s substitute for a currently “illegal” substance.
You’re not seeing the worst side of marijuana…you’re seeing the worst side of people

here it is again with a totally legal substance.
You’re not seeing the worst side of cigarettes…you’re seeing the worst side of people

You’re not seeing the worst side of snuff & chewing tobacco…you’re seeing the worst side of people

You can substitute any item or substance you like, and my response is the same.

With personal freedom of choice, comes responsibility for one’s actions.

I support both.

15

There are far too many components to the problem of alcohol abuse to prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution. Prohibition would drive some substance abusers to abuse other substances, while it also would undoubtedly saves the life of the binge drinker college freshman, or the family of four he may have killed on the highway. Overall, though, by any measure of health and wellness, we’d be better off without it - but not with a government that restricts our liberty to choose to consume it. IMO.

I lost my father to a drunk driver - himself - when I was nine. It’s nothing short of a miracle that I lived through my teens and early 20s, not because of alcoholism - at least, not in the classic sense - but because of blackout-inducing binge drinking. Like my father, I suspect, I have no “off switch” once the beer starts flowing. Time has not remedied that condition, either, as I thought it would. The last time I went out drinking (November 24th, 2008) I lost a full two hours, ended in a total blackout. I can go for months without a drink and not miss it for a minute, but in the course of a few hours gain the capacity to ruin my life and that of those in my path, no differently from a three-bottle-a-day street walking drunkard. Drunk driving, infidelity, criminal or dangerous behavior - anything is possible in that state of darkness: Wife, home, new baby, job, limb or life - all could be gone in the blink of an eye, just like my father’s, and for what? Alcohol never controlled my life on a day-to-day basis, but I’ve submitted myself (and others) to its total control on far too many occasions. November 24th marked the end of that russian roulette game for me.

As to the question of legality, it’s purely political. The government and its constituents profit from alcohol and tobacco, which combined pose essentially the same risks - only greater - than marijuana. Our policy is incoherent and impractical, but don’t look for it to change anytime soon. A & T are inextricably bound to our economy and culture (as is the prohibition of marijuana), and thus our political structure; prohibition of either will be another one of those “pry it from my cold, dead hands” endeavors.

So, the answer to what to do about it, is, IMO, do what is within your power to protect yourself and your loved ones from the harm it can cause, be it with education, legislation, community activism/outreach, etc., and know that everything we do will still leave innocents exposed to harm, as a consequence of life in an open and free society.

16

With personal freedom of choice, comes responsibility for one’s actions.

I support both.

I understand. It is easy to take this stand when you are talking about some things.

What is restitution for the victims? They are dead. Their families mourn. I tell you with all certainty, if the police had violated this woman’s civil liberties and taken her into custody, these 4 kids would not have been mowed down by this woman.

I am not saying I agree with this, but where is the line? As a father there is no amount of restitution that could be good enough. The punishment of this woman is not satisfactory. Money would not be satisfactory. Even if this woman were to surrender her own life (although Michigan does not have the death penalty) it would not be enough.

In this case hundreds of people have been touched in the worst way, not to mention the 4 teens that have died, all so that this 1 woman could have the right to be an idiot.

I know it is a slippery slope, but there is something terribly wrong here.

Bernie

17

I agree. We really need more laws, more Govt. and more supervision.

i disagree with you; we have endless laws and supervision, yet the problem is rampant and continues to be an expensive societal drain. so outside of being a smartass, what is the solution.

this is a multi-layered thing, obviously, there is no easy answer. but for as much as it costs our society, i think it’s fair to say we’re desperate for a solution.

18

There is no restitution sufficient for a tragedy like that…period.

Sadly, sometimes shit just happens and the best we can do is to punish the person responsible.

19

I agree. We really need more laws, more Govt. and more supervision.

Sadly, I’ve been taken literaly.

How 'bout I take the above back.

Shit happens. Its all about personal responsibility and nothing more than personal responsibility.

20

ok. shit happens, yes.

but when my father in law was killed by a drunk driver at 10am one day a few years ago, it really felt more impactful than “shit happens”.

also, when my uncle was murdered, last Sept, by an 18 year old woman who was high on drugs, it felt more impactful than “shit happens”.

when i sat at those funerals, it sure felt much more painful than “shit happens”.

the terrible reality is that this addiction problem costs us billions, and people are murdered every day. if it was as simple as “personal responsibility” we would cease to have the grand scale problems.