I’m often torn about how to handle even guilty multiple DUI folks.
I certainly believe in forced treatment—residential of at least 90 days.
But by then, usually, the guy has lost his job; the wife and kids or shack-up and kids are worse off than ever etc. etc. etc. yadayadayada.
No easy solutions. Certainly society can throw the book at them.
I think the military finally wised up . . . when I last checked, it was 2 strikes and 2 chances at treatment. 3rd, you were out with a bad conduct or some such.
And, there was some progress made against the Navey etc. traditions of breeding drunks.
But lots of employers just slice a guy off first thing. Which, is certainly reasonable from a number of perspectives. But . . . without treatment, it doesn’t do him or society that much good.
And, treatment has to be long enough and well ran enough that the guy learns a WHOLE DIFFERENT WAY OF LIVING and coping with the pains and discomforts of daily life. For some thick-headed stubborn souls, that can take a bit.
Incarceration is an option. I think an ankle bracelet and confinement at home and to job after treatment would likely be more cost effective and more effective generally. Anywhere near a bar in a given period of months and it’s instant 30 days in the clink or some such.
I think the family system needs to be involved in treatment, too. Don’t need the little woman sabotaging treatment because she needs someone to be needy and dependent on her.
Certainly the kids need help. Look at Billdo Klintoon. Don’t need any more of those!!!
Actually, I’m mostly p*ssing in the wind. Nothing significant is going to change before the whole world goes to hell in a hand basket. And then there will be a long list of much more urgent priorities.
Still, if I’ve helped wake anyone up and pay more attention to the consequences of alcohol abuse, it’s worth it.
One smart thing the Navy did do was having the bars on base. Most who did drink usually walked to and from the ship to the club. The walk was generally far enough to where you had a good time lapse between last drink and getting back to the ship. In Norfolk 1970's there wasn't that many places to drink. Overseas was a different matter.
The Navy during that time also returned to a Liberty Pass type of system. If you were a known problem drinker your liberty was pulled till behavior changed. Odd enough the entire Engineering Department on my ship nearly lost Liberty in 1979 for the duration of a cruise over a few rowdy persons in a bar. A lot of guys had their cards pulled over that. I always got to leave the ship but I stayed out of bars for the most part.
I had one blackout and never let myself get to that point again. It was the result of ignorance and involved a stupid dare with Jack Daniels and a shot glass. I walked back to the ship before passing out. That did not happen again. A cruise and a half working liberty boat crew gave me my fill of dealing with belligerent drunks. BTW that was usually about 1-2 persons out of over 5000 onboard who ended up tied down inside a wire mesh stretcher cage to get them back to the ship. Not a bad average all things considered.
Well back to the subject of the thread. I do not believe for one moment the intent of putting breath alcohol devices in cars is out of anyones concern for the person drinking nor even the ones they may harm. It is strictly a monetary measure driven by insurance companies like most of the other Nanny Laws. They could care less if you drank two fifths a night and killed your family in a drunken rage as long as no insurance claims were involved.
M.A.D.D. one of the primary backers it seems is their useful idiot and they play on the emotions of the membership by manipulating them to getting desired results. They used Soccer moms to get the child seats from hell.
Don't you find it rather odd that for all our woes one specific special interest group has managed to get government to provide all the answers they request? All of it starts out as a voluntary so called good idea and withing a couple of years becomes mandatory law. When seat belts came out use was on a volunteer basis. Then came the seatbelt laws but a ticket could only be written during a stop for other offenses. Now they have seat belt road blocks. My state has a two strike license revoke law for seatbelts. Now how does that effect my driving skills? It doesn't. It is government over stepping into private matters to protect corporate profit loss. Don't get me wrong I think they are a great invention. But mandatory?
I am among the few who can not wear a seatbelt/shoulder restraint due to medical condition. I can't wear a suit and tie either nor button the top two buttons on a shirt. For liability reasons the doctors will not sign a waiver for me not to use a seat belt. Every day I now break the law. What's worse even if I don't drive I still break the law or inflict that upon the driver as they are mandatory.
Even the medication I take was almost taken off the market because some persons liked to abuse it usually with alcohol. Many doctors now due to public ignorance and media hype are scared to death to prescribe it. The drug is Xanax.
All that just because a few alcoholic movie stars used the drug with their booze binges. As for me I can not function without the drug as it allows me dull my sensory system to a functional level I can tolerate and control my seizure activity. When will enough be enough?