Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Set flame Med High.......
    
    
    Doncha love it.... Soem body that is related to someone important
    gets arrested for illegal wrong doings and it gets all hush hush,
    Poor Kitty who is trying to fight her addiction and having trouble
    is spread across every paper in MA when all she needs is a privacy.
    
    It just flames me that while one is trying to come to grips and
    needs privacy can't get it and the other who fragently breaks the
    laws gets arrested gets all the privacy instead of the publicity
    that others would get in his position.
    
    Lise

    I suspect that if in fact a relative of the President was arrested,
    it's only a matter of time until the media brings it to our aware-
    ness.  I really don't mean to be contrary here, but I'm not sure
    what your trying to say, Lise.  Ms. Dukakis is a relative of a 
    public figure and so are the relatives of the President.  Should
    they all be "hush-hush" or should they all be reported in the 
    media?
    
    Steve

    Am I in Soapbox?
    
    Oh, I forgot, Soapbox is closed temporarily... I guess it's time to
    take hiatus from Womannotes.
    
    *sigh*
    Marge

    Don't go just yet, Marge.

    
    Wouldn't an arrest be open for public review - ie, the
    local Police Blotter printed in the paper every week?
    
    I can't imagine this could be kept secret for very long,
    given the information is legally accessible. 
                                                        
                                          
    I believe Lise's point was that Mrs. Dukakis and her
    family were harassed by "enquiring minds" looking for 
    a juicy story. The story was newsworthy, but should
    not have commanded front page headlines for a week.
    This put the story way out of perspective. If this is
    true, I'm sure the son-in-law will also by subjected to
    intense public scrutiny as well....  
    
    I'm wondering, should the police chief have acknowledged 
    talking with FBI? Kind of dumb, I think. 
                                                             
    
    
    
    
    
                                                      
    
    
     

Re.5 Thanks
    
    Yes I know Kitty is family of a public figure but when someone is
    sick and trying to get healthy and has a set back of whatever sort,
    it doesn't need to be fragently (sp?) spread over first pages for
    a week. Kitty and the family at that time needed privacy to regroup
    and get on the right track.
     The Police chief HAS admitted that he was told not to talk about
    it. 

    >Doncha love it.... Soem body that is related to someone important
    >gets arrested for illegal wrong doings and it gets all hush hush,
    >Poor Kitty who is trying to fight her addiction and having trouble
    >is spread across every paper in MA when all she needs is a privacy.

    "hush hush"? It was reported that he was arrested, and what the charges
    are. He is scheduled to be arraigned in Concord District Court  on
    Dec 18. *I* think that the secrete service and the Maynard police Chief
    are doing the right thing by not commenting on the situation. The law
    says that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and is entitled to
    a FAIR TRIAL IN A COURT OF LAW, not the newspapers. If Mr. LeBlond is
    guilty, I'd hate to see the case thrown out of court due to the
    publicity that the case received in the papers. And if he is not
    guilty, well, I'd hate to see his reputation destroyed just because
    some folks don't agree with his father-in-law's political stands.

    I agree that the media ought to leave Kitty alone but the situation is
    different, like comparing apples and oranges. What they were doing with
    Kitty is an invasion of privacy (which is NOT RIGHT) , but it is not the
    same as jeopardizing someone's right to a fair trial. 

    Deb

    I'll find out the facts. I know someone in Maynard. 
    
    Kate
    

    It's the court's job to find out the facts.  The media can then
    publish the "facts" after they're determined at trial.  Some may
    find the facts interesting to read, but I doubt that it's worth
    my time.  
    
    I also ignore stories about Kitty.  I don't much like Yellow
    Journalism.  Her problem does not sufficiently affect the public
    for the public to have a right to know about it.
    
    The media will probably give the drunken/drugged driving story much
    coverage either.  I would only take interest if there is an attempt
    by politicians to protect a relative found guilty of crime from
    the punishment.  That happens too much, but I doubt that we need
    worry about it happening in Massachusetts to a Republican.
    
    Bud

    RE: .6
    >     The Police chief HAS admitted that he was told not to talk about
    >it. 
    
    Excuse me, but where did you hear or read that? Every account that I
    have read of this said that Chief Tibbits said that he was
    contacted by the secrete service but declines to discuss the contents
    of the conversation. That is not the same as being told not to talk
    about it.
    
    Deb

    
    Re: 7
    You are right when you say a father on laws' politics
    should not have an impact - I don't think anyone
    here is persecuting him for his relatives. Personally
    I feel sorry for him - it must be a an ordeal to 
    be under a magnifying glass. 
    
    My impression from what people have written is that 
    they are annoyed the "cheif" is giving the appearance 
    of covering up. I think I mentioned he was stupid 
    for even mentioning the FBI - open mouth insert foot! 
    
    He is right, however, as all law enforcement officials 
    are in saying no comment. He would indeed jeopardize
    the man's right to a fair trial. His mistake was calling
    attention to it in the first place - a bad error in
    judgement.  
    
    I think people get emotional over this issue because they
    have seen the press hound the Dukakis family - another 
    "political family", but a very different situation. Many 
    families have a "Kitty" and I too, hate to see a person's
    private struggle publicized in such a fashion, especially
    around an already emotional holiday season. As for George's
    son-in-law, time and the court will decide his fate, not
    the papers. 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                     
    

    RE: .11

    >My impression from what people have written is that 
    >they are annoyed the "cheif" is giving the appearance 
    >of covering up. I think I mentioned he was stupid 
    >for even mentioning the FBI - open mouth insert foot! 


    I don't have the Maynard Beacon, but I have an article that looks
    similar what what I saw in the Beacon, that was in the Minuteman Chronicle. 
    From the limited amount of the article that was entered into the base note,
    folks may be swayed into thinking that the chief was "covering up". However,
    if one saw the whole article that was in the Chronicle, or at least saw
    the the whole quote, one might get a different opinion. This was a short
    article so I will type it in following the form feed.

    >                                                         Many 
    >families have a "Kitty" and I too, hate to see a person's
    >private struggle publicized in such a fashion, especially
    >around an already emotional holiday season.

    I understand this all too well, as there are several "Kitty's" in my own
    family, and I have to admit, the editorial statement in the last line in
    the base note ("Perhaps President Bush needs to move the front line of the
    War On Drugs to his own home") has really set me off. Something that I,
    like many others who have chemically dependent family members, have
    come to learn, is that *I* didn't cause the problem, *I* can't cure the
    problem and *I* can't control the problem. Comments about where Bush
    should move his war on drugs campaign are just as insensitive and
    uncalled for as comments like "If I were married to Dukakis, I'd be
    try suicide, too".

    Deb

    
    Maynard- President Bush's son-in-law was arrested Friday, Nov 10, night
    for operating under the influence of alcohol and possession of a class
    D substance, marijuana.

    William Heekin LeBlond, 32, of Valley road, Cape Elizabeth, Maine was
    arrested at 11:15 p.m. after Stow police notified Maynard police that a
    pick-up truck was being driven erratically, police reports said.

    Maynard police chief Arner Tibbetts said yesterday afternoon that he
    would "not deny" that the man arrested is the son-in-law of the
    president. However, Tibbetts said he would not confirm that LeBlond is
    the president's estranged son-in-law. "There is nothing required on an
    arrest report to say who you're affiliations are" he said.

    "We have no comment on information on that arrest," said Jean Becker, a
    White House spokesman. "We don't comment on the private lives of the
    children."

    Secrete Service Agent Richard Adams of the Secrete Service Public
    Affairs office in Washington D.C. said he could not comment on an
    arrest made outside of his jurisdiction.

    Secrete Service officials in Washington, D.C. referred questions on the
    issue to Maynard police. Tibbetts said that he was contacted yesterday
    by the Secrete Service but declined to discuss the content of the
    conversation.

    LeBlond is scheduled to be arraigned in Concord District Court Dec. 18.

    The Portland (Maine) Press Herald reported that LeBlond and his wife,
    Dorothy Bush, the president's daughter, separated Aug. 30. The couple
    has two children.

    At the time of the separation, William LeBlond, one of the 10 children
    from New Canaan, Conn., was employed as a construction contractor, a
    librarian at the Portland Press Herald said.

    When the couple married in 1982, it was reported that they would live
    in Cape Elizabeth, the librarian said. 

    I heard WSRO report this on the radio this morning.

    Oh, come one, people!  This is VERY different than poor Kitty's
    situation.  She has not spearheaded a "war on alcohol" which would,
    in this instance, make her a laughable hypocrite.
    
    Charity begins at home and so does practicing what you preach.
    With the arrest of a Bush family member, (and now we're going to 
    have to delineate between blood and marriage, right?) Bush looks like 
    a jerk preaching what he preaches about drugs.  LaBlonde was drunk,
    he had pot on him, the Secret Service immediately contacted the
    Maynard police, and the Maynard police said, "Yessir, yessir, of
    course, sir" and LaBlonde was released on $25 bail.
    
    TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS!
    
    Do you know ANYONE who's EVER been released for twenty-five dollars?
    How about anyone arrested for drunk driving AND having marijuana
    in possession?
    
    It doesn't take much to know that who you are and how much you've
    got determines what you can do in this country - this place where
    everyone is created equal - where there is no caste system - where
    justice, freedom and liberty applies to all.  (Excuse me, I think
    I have to throw up).
    
    There's a slight ripple here, because this is where it happened.
    But I doubt it's the national news that it should be - I doubt it
    will ever become the laugh it should be.  I doubt Bush will ever
    have to make the comment he should be forced to make regarding his
    war on drugs and his 'own house'.
    
    Hypocrites, all.  Because you, mon frere, mon hypocrite lecture,
    (I love T.S. Elliot), would not be in work today if it were YOU!
    You'd be in the slammer trying to get up the thousands of dollars
    it would take to get you out until your trial which would surely result
    in jail, (if you were male), and probation, (if you were female),
    for the allegedly "small amount" they found on Bill LaBlonde.
    
    To quote Hall & Oates,  (and I want the last stanza where he really
    belts it out)
    
    "It's a laugh... what a laugh..."
    
     

	 The fact is that the media loves to hype such events and
	 interject their opinions into the facts.

	 It happens every day that recovering alcoholics slip and take
	 a drink.  It happens every day that recovering drug addicts
	 slip and take a hit (or whatever the term is for it).

	 It happens everyday that people are arrested for drunk
	 driviing and possession of an illegal substance.

	 All these things happen every day in the US, and are handled
	 in typical ways.  Kitty is not "bad" because she
	 slipped.....nor should the media (and those faithful to the
	 media) punish her for it, but accept that it happens and give
	 her the strength to go on.  Nor should the fact that Bush's
	 brother-in-law being arrested have any bearing on Bush
	 himself, nor should the brother-in-law be treated any
	 differently than the normal, everyday individual (which we
	 all are...even Bush and Kitty...normal everyday
	 individuals...but that's another story entirely).

	 kath

    
    'rathole alert'
    it says alot to me that one of the biggest chunks of money for the 'war
    on drugs' is being spent on 'real' war. that is, *military* aid to the
    governments of colombia, et al. i guess it's o.k. since it's not in the
    'defence' budget.
    

    re .15
    
    I had only heard that neither the Secret Service nor the Police
    Chief had commented on the call.  Where did you get the script of
    the conversation from?
    
    I would as much have expected any interference by the President
    to be to increase the penalty against this individual.  He had broken
    up with his wife, Bush's daughter.  Then there is the hay to make
    from prosecuting a "member of the family" because what he was doing
    was wrong and should be punished.  This latter fits better with
    the television address referencing a drug bust just off the White
    House grounds.  But then I didn't know the content of the call until
    your expose.
    
    Bud

    If it were true that the Secret Service induced special treatment of
    Bush's son-in-law, I'd consider that inappropriate. Beyond that, I
    can't see why Bush himself should be implicated in any way by anything
    his son-in-law does. I certainly have no control over the actions of my
    brother and sisters, my parents, or my wife's relatives, and would be
    rightly annoyed if anyone tried to sling mud in my direction based on
    any actions they might take. Why should Bush be any different?

    Guilt by association is wrong, whether the target is a big fish like
    Bush or a little worm like me.

The only think I find strange about this incident is that it has received
essentially *no* media coverage.  WBUR (public radio) had about 5 seconds
worth on their 6:00 AM newscast, but it didn't seem to have made the Globe
or any national media.

The interesting contrast here is not with Mrs. Dukakis, but with Geraldine
Ferraro's son's arrest, which was the topic of much media attention.  Somehow,
I think that there was more than the usual editorial consideration paid to
this incident.

Martin.

    There was a medium sized article in the Union Leader about it. 
    I also saw it on two newscasts, different stations, and heard it
    on WROR news.
    
    The contrast with Geraldine Ferraro's son so far is between the
    President's lack of intervention and Geraldine's tremendous
    intervention and eventual winning of incarceration of her son (if
    you can call it that) in a luxury condo with amenities I can only
    dream of.  Geraldine's involvement was news partly because of the
    resultant thwarting of justice.  If Bush does half as much as she
    did, it will become news.  Assuming that he will is mudslinging
    and unfair.  Her son's convictionwas for dealing as I recall.  That
    makes it a bigger deal anyway.
    
    Bud

    RE: .14
    >Do you know ANYONE who's EVER been released for twenty-five dollars?

    Do you know anyone that hasn't (when there was no injury/property damage)?
    If you would care to do a bit of research, give Mass AAA a call at
    (617) 723-0800 x200 and ask for a pamphlet jointly issued by AAA and
    the Governor's Highway Safety Bureau called "If you Drink and Drive, Give
    it Up". It gives a break down of the average cost of getting convicted for
    a first time offender with no property damage. The AVERAGE "Magistrate's
    night time bail fee" is listed at $20. So it sounds like Mr. LeBlonde
    got a slightly *higher* than average bail, but certainly is not out of the
    bounds that the average citizen would have received.
     
    >Oh, come one, people!  This is VERY different than poor Kitty's
    >situation.  She has not spearheaded a "war on alcohol" which would,
    >in this instance, make her a laughable hypocrite.
    
    I'm having a bit of trouble with your "logic", however. If you think that
    George Bush is a hypocrite for his "War on Drugs" stand because his
    estranged son-in-law (not George himself but his son-in-law) was arrested
    for drunk driving and possession of a controlled substance, what does that
    make the person you are comparing him to (and I think trying to canonize),
    Kitty Dukakis, who drinks rubbing alcohol after having just come back
    from a lecture circuit talking about alcoholism and addiction? 

    Before I get flamed for the above statement, I am not calling Kitty a
    hypocrite. I understand all too well that alcoholism is a disease and that
    it is prone to relapses and denial, and that very often a recovering
    alcoholic will feel a craving for alcohol and will drink some "non-booze"
    substance that contains alcohol (like vanilla extract, cough syrup, mouth
    wash, after shave, sterno or rubbing alcohol) instead of going to the
    liquor cabinet. Because it wasn't "really booze", the slip can be
    justified in the alcoholic's own mind. I empathize with the pain that
    the Dukakis family is going through, DESPITE the fact that I don't care
    for her husband's political stands. I especially feel for the kids. 

    RE: .18

    If you are referring to .12 (not .15), as I stated, that was the
    Minuteman Chronicle, which I believe is a Concord MA paper. (Someone I
    work with showed me an ad in there and I noticed the story about on the
    neighboring page).

    RE: .20

    It may not have been in the Boston Globe, but it did make the Boston
    Herald (on Tuesday,I think).

    Deb

RE:  20, 22

This incident was written up in the Boston Globe in a short article.

john

    Just a question, though I doubt it will be answered without a lot
    or retoric...
    
    Why is 'poor Kitty' sick and in need of help, and LaBlonde 'a drunk'
    and in need of a jail sentence?
    
    Why is it significant that Kitty has not 'spearheaded a "war on
    alcohol"', when LaBlonde has not either?
    
    I have many other questions, but I'll hold my tongue...
    
    jim
    

    hmmm, let me see if I can answer you, Jim, without "a lot of rhetoric".
    
    Kitty has acknowledged her addiction and has sought treatment;
    moreover, she didn't drive drunk...she just drank something poisonous.
    To me, at least, that clearly makes a medical framework the appropriate
    one in which to characterise her behavior. 
    
    Unless LaBlonde has also acknowledged an addiction to alcohol, then his
    behavior should be construed simply in criminal terms:  DWI.  And if
    other people go to jail for that offence, then if he is convicted _he_
    should go to jail.
    
    						=maggie

    re: .24
    
    >>Why is 'poor Kitty' sick and in need of help, and LaBlonde 'a drunk'
    >>and in need of a jail sentence?
    
    To echo what Maggie has said, Kitty wasn't out driving under the
    influence of alcohol and drugs.  Furthermore, she and her family has
    been *harrassed* and *hounded* by the press, not giving her a moment of
    peace to take the time *she* needs to heal from her illness.
    
    LaBlonde, in my opinion, has the same illness as Kitty.  However, he did 
    break the law by driving under the influence.   Getting arrested may be the
    thing that will cause him to "hit bottom" and acknowledge that he has a
    problem so that he might seek help and get into recovery.  
    
    Instead of making assumptions about LaBlonde because he has some
    indirect connection to George Bush, we could, perhaps put our energy to
    a more useful cause by offering up some positive and healing energy to
    whatever power we believe in on behalf of LaBlonde and all others who
    still suffer from the effects of the disease of alcohol and drug
    addiction.
    
    Laura
    

>             <<< Note 869.26 by SONATA::ERVIN "Roots & Wings..." >>>

    
>    LaBlonde, in my opinion, has the same illness as Kitty.  However, he did 
>    break the law by driving under the influence.   Getting arrested may be the
>    thing that will cause him to "hit bottom" and acknowledge that he has a
>    problem so that he might seek help and get into recovery.  


	 Nit.......You don't have to be an alcoholic to "drive drunk."
	 Being stopped for being under the influence can and does
	 happen to people that simply take a drink or two at a
	 cocktail party.

	 Kitty is an alcoholic.  I don't believe there has been any
	 evidence to date that confirms that LaBlonde is an alcoholic,
	 is there?
	    


	 Drinking alcohol and being addicted to alcohol are two very
	 separate and distinct states.  Not all people arrested for
	 DUI/DWI are alcoholics, and certainly no assumption as to
	 their state can be made.


	 End nit.


	 kath    

    How many times can a person "drive drunk" without being an alcoholic?
    Once? Twice? Fifteen times?  When someone "drives drunk" it seems to me
    that alcohol, not the individual him/herself, is in control. 
    When/where/how do you draw the line?

>    How many times can a person "drive drunk" without being an alcoholic?
>    Once? Twice? Fifteen times?  When someone "drives drunk" it seems to me
>    that alcohol, not the individual him/herself, is in control. 
>    When/where/how do you draw the line?


	 Being an alcoholic means that you are, in a sense, addicted
	 to alcohol (habitual and excessive use, using it to make you
	 feel better, to make you feel accepted, etc).

	 Being an alcoholic has no reference in any way to driving and
	 being arrested for "driving under the influence."


	 BTW, assumptions are being made here that I don't agree with,
	 first off, I believe he was arrested for "driving under the
	 influence", not "driving while intoxicated."  the two terms
	 have very different meanings.

	 Also, assumptions are being made that he WAS drunk and that
	 he IS guilty, whereas, I have yet to see the court's
	 decision.  (I'm not defending this guy, only his right to be
	 innocent until proven guilty.)



	 I know people that rarely drink alcohol, and drive home (it
	 happens from almost any cocktail party (business and/or
	 social), happy hours, a dinner, etc)....and most, if not all
	 these people are NOT alcoholics.

	 Being stopped for drunk driving does NOT imply that you have
	 a drinking problem, only a problem with
	 responsibility....being responsible enough to know when you
	 can't drive.



	 kath

    Kath --

    You're right, there is no direct connection between driving drunk and
    the disease of alcoholism.
    
    However, I would suggest that most of those who are arrested and
    convicted of DWI or DUI are likely to have a problem with alcohol.
    
    Most of the time, social drinkers don't drink and drive -- more often,
    alcoholics do.  
    
    					andrew
    
    (Sidelight - DWI vs. DUI: I'm not sure what the distinction is in MA --
    in other states, it's the level of alcohol.)
    
    (.05 < .10 = DUI / > .10 = DWI)

     
	 >>Nit.......You don't have to be an alcoholic to "drive drunk."
	 
Driving drunk is an indication of one's judgement being impaired.  We can 
split hairs and say that driving drunk can indicate a problem, or that one 
is out of control with alcohol, the question then can be asked at what 
point does the person cross the line from "problem" drinker to alcoholic?

         >>Being stopped for being under the influence can and does
	 >>happen to people that simply take a drink or two at a
	 >>cocktail party.

One or two drinks at a cocktail party will not elevate the blood alcohol 
level enough to fail a breath-a-lyzer test, unless the one or two drinks 
have more than one ounce of alcohol per drink in them.

         >>I don't believe there has been any
	 >>evidence to date that confirms that LaBlonde is an alcoholic,
	 >>is there?
	    
I was only stating an opinion about LaBlonde.

	 >>Drinking alcohol and being addicted to alcohol are two very
	 >>separate and distinct states.  

Agreed.  I didn't say they were the same.  But if someone drives drunk or 
    under the influence of drugs, then I believe that is a pretty good
    indication that a problem exists.

         >>Not all people arrested for
	 >>DUI/DWI are alcoholics

But a majority are, and by the time they get arrested it is a good bet that 
they have driven drunk many times before.  And even after they get arrested 
once, many repeat the behavior.  
    

    While one may not have a 'high' blood-alcohol content 
    from one or two drinks, it is still possible to be 
    impaired by that amount. Some people cannot hold that
    amount of alcohol, whether from lack of practice, low
    body mass, interaction with medication. 
    
    If a cop sees such a person driving unsteadily he may pull
    that person over. Whether a conviction will ensue is
    another matter.

    
.30>	Most of the time, social drinkers don't drink and drive -- more
.30>	often, alcoholics do.
    
    	I don't agree.  Alcoholics have a higher tendency to drink in 
    	the privacy of their homes than the person who only drinks if
    	out with friends or at a party.
    
    	Social drinkers don't usually socialize only at home.
    
    	Carla
    

>        <<< Note 869.30 by SSGBPM::SSGBPM::KENAH "Ugly, but it works" >>>
    
>    However, I would suggest that most of those who are arrested and
>    convicted of DWI or DUI are likely to have a problem with alcohol.
>    
>    Most of the time, social drinkers don't drink and drive -- more often,
>    alcoholics do.  


	 I can tell you right now that I'm out, quite often, at bars
	 and clubs.....and that 95% of the people that drove there,
	 drove home.


	 And I would also go as far as to say that the great majority
	 of those people are NOT alcoholics............unless the
	 world as a whole is full of alcoholics.



	 Being an alcoholic is VERY different than being a social
	 drinker.   And most all social drinkers I know will drive
	 home will their judgement is impaired (btw, you don't have to
	 have more than two drinks in a given time period to fail a
	 breathalizer).


	 I agree that people that drink while intoxicated/impaired
	 have a problem, but I feel that the problem is NOT with
	 alcohol but with judgement.


	 kath

>    While one may not have a 'high' blood-alcohol content 
>    from one or two drinks, it is still possible to be 
>    impaired by that amount. Some people cannot hold that
>    amount of alcohol, whether from lack of practice, low
>    body mass, interaction with medication. 


	 And it is also possible to be totally coherent and reactions
	 to be just as fast, and perception to be just as high after
	 2-3 drinks as without drinks.

	 Every body handles alcohol differently......I still maintain
	 that I can drink quite a bit of champagne and have,
	 literally, nothing impaired.  It simply does not effect me
	 (this has been proven, btw................in one of those
	 drink/test reaction tests.)


	 kath

    re: .35
    
|	 I wish I could take a survey, but of course I can't, but more
|	 often than not, people with a few drinks under the belt WILL
|	 drive home, and they WILL get home safely.
    
    More often than not, people who play russian roulette *WILL* play
    it safely.
    
    								-mr. bill

>                    <<< Note 869.37 by BETHE::LICEA_KANE >>>

>         -< Not much of a reason to recommend, let alone condone.... >-


	 I am NOT recommending it OR condoning it.


	 I'm saying it happens.  It happens a LOT!!!!!  Fact.  I
	 neither condone nor recommend that people drive under the
	 influence....


	 It is simply a fact that a VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE of social
	 drinkers DO do this....and DO get away with it.....and DO
	 believe that it will not happen to them.


	 Fact, not support....simply fact.



	 kath
	 

         >>I'm saying it happens.  It happens a LOT!!!!!  Fact.  I
	 >>neither condone nor recommend that people drive under the
	 >>influence....
         
         >>It is simply a fact that a VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE of social
	 >>drinkers DO do this...
    
    If this is true, that very large numbers of "social drinkers"
    repeatedly drive under the influence, or drive while very intoxicated,
    then I would wonder if these people are truly "social drinkers."  
    
    If this said group of "social drinkers" repeatedly need to drink until
    a slight or severe "buzz" is achieved in order to have a socially good
    time, does this not send up a flag that there may well be a problem
    with one's relationship to alcohol or drugs?
    

>             <<< Note 869.39 by SONATA::ERVIN "Roots & Wings..." >>>


	 I might point out here that a possible reason that more
	 alcoholics are arrested for DUI/DWI could possibly be because
	 rather simply, many alcoholics drink on a daily basis,
	 whereas most social drinkers do not.


	 Which means there is a higher probability that alcoholics
	 will be on the road, intoxicated, much more often than social
	 drinkers.




	 I guess the point I am trying to get across is that drinking
	 and driving does not mean you have a problem with alcohol,
	 but rather a problem with judgement.


	 kath

RE .36 -

>	 And it is also possible to be totally coherent and reactions
>	 to be just as fast, and perception to be just as high after
>	 2-3 drinks as without drinks.

Can you support this? Every test I've seen (sober person takes a car through an 
obstacle course, has one drink, and tries the same course again) has shown the
reverse - people who feel just fine, don't think they're impaired in the least,
have significant reduction in driving skill and reaction time after a single
drink, with blood levels below the legal limit of intoxication.

I seriously doubt anybody has "just as fast" reactions after 2-3 drinks - unless
you mean "several days after".

RE the "who's an alcoholic" discussion - this sounds a lot like the "who's a
feminist" discussion. I suspect there are some very specific medical reactions 
which define an alcoholic in technical terms, but there's also the more squishy
"social" definition which relates to abdication of control. Two different things.

RE: .41


>I seriously doubt anybody has "just as fast" reactions after 2-3 drinks - unless
>you mean "several days after".



	 I believe there was a discussion along these lines before
	 somewhere, but my recall is missing at the moment.

	 In short, some people's body's process alcohol and drugs
	 differently than other's.

	 Just like no pain reliever has any effect on me short of
	 double doses of codiene (and then very little), champagne has
	 virtually no effect on me.

	 To some people with different body chemistries, 2-3 drinks
	 have very little effect on them.  (I mentioned a study I did
	 in college with alcohol, my reactions after three glasses of
	 champagne within two hour's time were not degraded.  In
	 another test with beer, they were).

	 But no, I don't have documented stats.


	 kath

    I agree with everything that Kath has said.  
    
    Another difference with the alcoholics I have known is that they
    daily drink much larger amounts of alcohol than social drinkers
    do on occasion.
    
    Another point, most drivers have a low level of skill and knowledge
    to handle dangerous situations well.  A great many of them drive
    above their skill level.  Driver licensing in this country happens
    despite extremely little training and preparedness for even minor
    traffic situations.  
    
    Most social drinkers will drive more carefully to counterbalance
    the degree of imparement that they have.  This is not true for the
    immature (thus insurance rates are higher) or alcoholics who are
    considerably impared all the time that they're not on the wagon.
    
    I used to be a heavy social drinker. (Social drinker to me means
    in company and no NEEDED schedule eg after work or every Friday
    night.)  My tolerance seemed much higher than most people's, perhaps
    due to my alcoholic ancestors.  I think 75% of intoxication is mental
    choice to be.  I have wanted to get intoxicated on a couple beers
    and have, while at other times I have drank all evening and felt
    little effect.  I drove home the vast majority of the time and some
    degree more carefully than I would normally drive depending on my
    condition.  I have also determined that I could not do so safely
    and asked someone that I felt could to do so.  I have never been
    in an acccident, followed, stopped, etc for an alcohol offense in
    over two decades of driving.
    
    For the past half dozen years I have had little interest in drinking.
    Maybe 2 6-packs a year and no mixed drinks.  I prefer diet Pepsi.
    It is not a reaction to what I view as a misguided crusade to find
    and put anyone with alcohol in their blood in jail.  Nail those
    who drive unsafely and leave everyone else alone.
    
    Bud