Alcohol Cases Are Lucrative

One of the most lucritave cases for police officers are alcohol cases that get challenged, but they are usually DUI cases.

IMHO, the officer's actions were less then professional. He was likely in a hurry to off-shift and decided that if it was going to cut into his personal time then it was going to be difficult for you. That's how the ball rolls sometimes. If someone overheard him say it then talk to your attorney and let them pop the ball; don't file a complaint against Officer Smart@$$ just yet.

About 90% of the officers I worked alongside were mean like this and every complaint the sergeant got they laughed about. ...unless it was after a case was dismissed and the attorney filed a wrongful arrest case or a civil rights case. The downside is that a soccer mom was arrested several years ago and was treated horribly by the officers. She decided to have a bench trial instead of a jury trial. Judges are paid by the state or county, officers are paid by the state or county, and the DA is paid by the state or county. You can guess what the decision was on that trial and the subsequent appeal.

An officer can be downright verbally brutal and case law now makes being an a-hole officer (also called on the police community a "cowboy cop") fun and profitable. You see, they will win the case and they get paid for the time to go to court; usually this is overtime for the officer at time and a half or doubletime if they have a really good union.

You just cost your parents some $$, though with a good attorney they may drop the charges on mom and dad and hit you with an MIP.

Quote:

---

Quoting usedbranflakes

---

One of the most lucritave cases for police officers are alcohol cases that get challenged, but they are usually DUI cases.

---

How are they "lucrative"? I have always found traffic court cases to be easier and more lucrative ... less stress, and shorter. And, with a minimum callback for court, much more lucrative (getting paid for three hours and spending only an hour because of contractual arrangements guaranteeing a minimum of three hours for court callback).

Quote:

---

About 90% of the officers I worked alongside were mean like this and every complaint the sergeant got they laughed about.

---

Where did YOU work??

This has not been my experience at all.

Quote:

---

Judges are paid by the state or county, officers are paid by the state or county, and the DA is paid by the state or county. You can guess what the decision was on that trial and the subsequent appeal.

---

I only wish it happened so easily! Far too often, the police and the DA are pissing at each other ... the DA and the judge are pissing at each other ... and the defense is pissing at everyone.

Who pays them (and local cops are not paid by the state OR the county) is never really an issue.

Quote:

---

An officer can be downright verbally brutal and case law now makes being an a-hole officer (also called on the police community a "cowboy cop") fun and profitable.

---

Again, quite contrary to my experience ... 18 years sworn, an additional year prior as a non-sworn employee.

I'm still curious what city or county this occurred in as then we can see what the violation actually involves. Is it a party ordinance? Drinking? Noise? Who knows?

- Carl

Carl - Trust me when I say that you are a very rare officer and CA is priveleged to have someone like you out there training personnel. People in their 30's and 40's are quite a bit more mature than the new officers being hired. Officers in my Dad's generation were amazing; yeah, you were getting a ticket, but you got it with professionalism.


Nothing makes money for street officers like drug and alcohol crimes getting challenged in court. Parents that have a bit of cash will usually fight MIP charges unless a deal is offered. Many people will fight DUIs, but it is starting to slow down where DUI trials are making more money for the defense attorneys rather than the State. North Carolina and their process changes are a huge boon to the prosecution and have actually hurt many officers who relied on the OT and cases being challenged.

I digress.... When I worked in Houston, TX (corporate security, not a sworn LEO) we had quite a few officers in the alcohol crimes unit make over $150k a year. This was because of the OT, sometimes federally funded, for these cases. Remember that MADD helps push legislators to provide funding to get these DUIdiots off the road and to curb the problem with underage drinking.

Usually people would get to court and the officer has to be there; case continued or scheduled later in the week, 1-2 hours in court for calendar call, and paid for 4 (if it was not during normal duty hours) ...and because these officers worked nights it was not normal duty hours. Hello time and a half! Sometimes defense attorneys would see if the officer was a no-show and then take the deal when they saw the officer there. Again, 1-2 hours and paid for 4.

Traffic can make money, too, particularly if your cases are continued or the fine is paid the day before and you get paid for the 4 hours to show, or 3 as you mentioned. I don't see a DUI as a traffic infraction, but a crime, so I don't lump DUI court and traffic court into the same ball of wax, even though they both start as traffic stops.

The department back home paid 4 hours for an appearance and the department I was going to join before my DUI paid for 2 hours local court and 4 hours if you were a county officer in the local court or 4 hours if you were a city officer going to County or State court.

Several of my friends are State Troopers and they are paid for 4 hours to show regardless of the court. After 4 hours in court they are paid for every hour. It's all usually time and a half because they patrol during nights and court is usually on their off night. Either that or they go sleep and come back 5-6 hours later and work their patrol. It's over 40 hours either way you put it.

Regarding complaints:
WV, where my ex-wife was sworn for the local police department they laughed at 90% of the complaints, maybe more. ...and you should have seen the stuff that came in. It was laughable. Well, all but the accusation from spouses that their spouse was cheating. I actually had a friend who was investigated by another officer in his department and they found no wrongdoing. Of course you know the rumor mill exists and runs pretty deep. She was staying at a male's residence but it was her POV and she was off-shift.

Several counties in GA, as well as the City of Atlanta, have a form letter that usually acknowledges what the officer did or notes that evidence was inconclusive. It goes on to say that he/she was EXONERATED whenever a complaint for "rudeness" is made. I would venture to say that this is not 90% of the time, but 100% of the time.

These complaints are usually shortly after the arrest, before the defendant hires an attorney, and almost force the department into NOT acknowledging it and NOT punishing the officer. Doing so would have given some defense attorneys room to wiggle and possibly file false arrest charges. Recent rulings (the soccer mom arrest a few years back) have noted that an officer is entirely within his/her right to be rude during an arrest.

I prefer the professional approach. Report and start the run on the plates. Ma'am, do you know why I stopped you? Listen to the excuse, write the ticket or warning, inform them of their court date or the place to pay the fine, and have a nice day.

Until a buddy of mine was mic'd up he would say that Minivans may look like the Space Shuttle, but they aren't. At least he was not discriminatory towards men or women. D- was always EXONERATED and his Shift SGT always laughed, or at least that's what D said every time we talked.

One of the officers I got to know in GA had complaints because he would always call the male arrestees girls names and use it in a (quite hilarious) sentence. C'mon Dorothy, let's find the yellow brick road or C'mon Lorena, let's search for what you threw out of the car. My favorite was the Lorena line; it really pissed off the guys.

The IA department had a stack of complaints on this guy and none of them stuck; he was made a training officer and I think was officer of the month 3 times in a year. They acknowledge that quite a few of their officers are rude, but note that they usually are rude as a response. ...I would be too if I had to work with some of the people they deal with running drugs through Hotlanta, up 95 and across 16 from Miami or from Jacksonville.

Unfortunately, due to a poor choice I made to drive after drinking, I can not be sworn law enforcement for another few years. It also shoots the opportunity to have a decent military career, even as a Reservist. I essentially flushed several years of training down the toilet.

Thanks for your questions.

Quote:

---

Quoting usedbranflakes

---

Carl - Trust me when I say that you are a very rare officer and CA is priveleged to have someone like you out there training personnel. People in their 30's and 40's are quite a bit more mature than the new officers being hired. Officers in my Dad's generation were amazing; yeah, you were getting a ticket, but you got it with professionalism.

---

That is still the general state of things in most locales in this country and certainly in CA. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, and even among otherwise level-headed and professional officers, there are days when they can be grumpy.

Your state must certainly be different than mine. Overtime for us is not made in court, it is made on the enforcement ... surveillance, saturation or directed patrols, etc. Court is pretty limited. You get called in, get your three hour minimum, and are done. In most cases, the case is called off before court. Jury trials are very rare, and cases that require an officer to be present more than 1/2 of the day (at least in CA) are almost non-existent.

Personnel complaints out here are required to be accepted (by law) and a response to the complaining party must be made (if they request one) concerning the outcome of the complaint. Most complaints ARE bogus .... often along the lines of: "The officer gave me a ticket instead of a warning ..." Those that are MORE than that DO tend to get investigated - though the conclusions are not always what the complaining party might want to hear. In my state officers have rights very similar to defendants, and it can often be very difficult to discipline an officer on a single complaint with no substantiation. But, complaints serve a purpose as they tend to give us some idea of who might be a better candidate for more direct supervision or training.

Quote:

---

Recent rulings (the soccer mom arrest a few years back) have noted that an officer is entirely within his/her right to be rude during an arrest.

---

This is true. Rudeness might be a violation of agency policy, but it is lawful.

Quote:

---

Listen to the excuse, write the ticket or warning, inform them of their court date or the place to pay the fine, and have a nice day.

---

We are trained NOT to use the "have a nice day" line ... why? Because you just gave them a ticket - one the driver probably thought was unfair or unwarranted. So, when you say that, the natural response is usually, "F--- you!" because you just tinkled on their day.

Unfortunately, it is a natural response in polite discourse, so many officer forget that training and say it anyway.

Quote:

---

The IA department had a stack of complaints on this guy and none of them stuck; he was made a training officer and I think was officer of the month 3 times in a year.

---

That is an administration problem, and that agency deserves the problems it has and the community deserves the lawsuits and lack of quality officers it will get as a result of allowing these decisions to be made.

Even if they could not discipline the guy, being a training officer is not a right and is not something you want grant an officer who has shown such poor people skills. But, if the agency does not care about getting sued, or about professionalism, then they deserve what they get ... as does the city that tolerates that administration.


- Carl

Let's keep this stuff in an appropriate forum, and out of threads where people are trying to get help with legal questions. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Quoting usedbranflakes

---

. It also shoots the opportunity to have a decent military career, even as a Reservist. I essentially flushed several years of training down the toilet.

Thanks for your questions.

---

Not trying to venture off topic, but thats bull-crap. In most states a first-time DWI is only a misdemeanor. Six months is the maximum punishment one can receive in Texas.

Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103295_pf.html

In particular, the Army accepted more than double the number of applicants with convictions for felony crimes such as burglary, grand larceny and aggravated assault, rising from 249 to 511, while the corresponding number for the Marines increased by two-thirds, from 208 to 350. The vast majority of such convictions stem from juvenile offenses. Most involved theft, but a handful involved sexual assault and terrorist threats, and there were three cases of involuntary manslaughter.

Oh yeah, a DWi is really gonna keep somebody out of the military!!!! Do you have any idea how DESPERATE they are for recruits???

That said! I'm my honest opinion, this country is headed back to the dark ages (prohibition). Fascist organizations like MADD and AA are constantly seeking to infringe upon our right to drink!! Do you realize we have more anti-alcohol laws than any other country??

As you all know, I liberally consume wine. I find it to be one of few pleasure that make this life worth living. It's helped many people get through stressful times in their life. I might have a glass right now!

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

That said! I'm my honest opinion, this country is headed back to the dark ages (prohibition). Fascist organizations like MADD and AA are constantly seeking to infringe upon our right to drink!!

---

That's hooey ... MADD does not make law - they lobby ... so do dozens of other organizations, many of which have much more local oomph than MADD. I can name almost a half dozen organizations in CA that seem to be much more effective at getting what they want then MADD. Laws are passed by the legislature. And AA (as an organization) does not do lobbying, so they are not doing anything of the sort.

While it might be nice to see an end to the consumption of drugs and alcohol, it just ain't gonna happen. And, of course, the problem is not in the drinking, it is in the driving while impaired.

(no, I do not advocate an end to alcohol in spite of my tea-totaling ways.)

- Carl

Carl, want a cold beer?

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Carl, want a cold beer?

---

Only if it is Cutter or O'Doul's ... as of today I have been alcohol free for 17 years and 10 months. :D

- Carl

Quote:

---

And AA (as an organization) does not do lobbying, so they are not doing anything of the sort.

---

AA per say as an organization does not do the lobbying themself using the AA name. They have the money to create organiztions (at least 5 that I'm aware of) that are heavily funded by AA and they do the lobbying. Don't be fooled, it's still a wolf just wearing sheeps clothing.

What are the five organizations?

The Twelve Traditions


One—Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.
Two—For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
Three—The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.
Four—Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.
Five—Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.
Six—An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.Seven—Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.Eight—Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional, but our service centers may employ special workers.
Nine—A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.Ten—Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.Eleven—Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.Twelve—Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

These traditions read at many AA meetings are its only "rules". The portions in bold are reference to gigirle assumptions of AA organizations and lobbists

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

AA per say as an organization does not do the lobbying themself using the AA name. They have the money to create organiztions (at least 5 that I'm aware of) that are heavily funded by AA and they do the lobbying. Don't be fooled, it's still a wolf just wearing sheeps clothing.

---

I think you are mistaking individuals within AA with organizations that may presumably lobby on their behalf ... and since they have no position, what exactly would be on their behalf?

Please, pray tell, what political position AA as an organization takes on any particular issue?

To my knowledge (as a friend of Bill W.) AA takes no political positions and endorses no legislation as a matter of course. Participants in AA/NA come from all walks of life and political stripes. They are not unified enough in political or legislative purpose to have any meaningful role in the political process. Not to mention the whole "anonymity" thing.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

What are the five organizations?

---

I have 4 off hand:
1. NCADD, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
2. ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine
3. NAADAC, the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors
4. The Hazelden Foundation

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

The Twelve Traditions


One—Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.
Two—For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
Three—The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.
Four—Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.
Five—Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.
Six—An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.Seven—Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.Eight—Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional, but our service centers may employ special workers.
Nine—A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.Ten—Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.Eleven—Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.Twelve—Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

These traditions read at many AA meetings are its only "rules". The portions in bold are reference to gigirle assumptions of AA organizations and lobbists

---

Thanks for posting this...it might help someone. If it were to send a message to me, please your wasting your time. BIG TIME!

Listen Panther, these are not my assumptions. My post was a combination of facts, beliefs and opinions based on my professional experience as well as personal. I've seen more drunks than you have in your 20+ years of AA meetings so don't make assumptions of me. You might meet the drunk at the meeting and he might stick around long enough to earn a coin or two but I deal with them on a daily basis and have for years. Your lucky that AA has worked for you, most are not as fortunate.

Since your free to throw assumptions around on me...let me ask you this..
How do you know that I'm not an ex drinker who has managed to stay sober in AA for the last 15 yrs? You don't! You also don't know that LOTS of active AA members don't agree with the "cult like mentality" that some members have. If you dont agree that it exists then you are not an open minded person at all and you couldnt' possibly offer help to anyone, so please don't sponsor anyone, you'll do more harm than good. It takes all kinds. Don't assume that I know nothing about AA and I wont assume that you know everything about everything.

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

I have 4 off hand:
1. NCADD, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
2. ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine
3. NAADAC, the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors
4. The Hazelden Foundation

---

None of those groups are funded by AA wher eyou getting your info. by the way I dont know but I do know I am a 22 year sober member of AA worked in various rehabs and know these groups are not funded owned operated or any other assumption you make by AA. AA hold smeeting sin those groups and AA programs may be taught there but there is no connection outside of common interest in helping alcoholics find recovery

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

AA per say as an organization does not do the lobbying themself using the AA name. They have the money to create organiztions (at least 5 that I'm aware of) that are heavily funded by AA and they do the lobbying. Don't be fooled, it's still a wolf just wearing sheeps clothing.

---

THANK YOU!!!! Gigirle, want a cold beer??

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

by the way I dont know but I do know I am a 22 year sober member of AA

---

This could explain alot... 22 years sober??? How do you stand it!!! I couldn't do 22 days!! Hell, I'm lucky to go 22 hours!!! 22 years without alcohol is enough to drive anybody CRAZY!!

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

I have 4 off hand:
1. NCADD, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence

---

Founded in 1944 by the first female member of AA ... NOT by AA. Currently they are involved in advocacy concerning addiction being a "disease" as opposed to a character problem.

Quote:

---

2. ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine

---

This group involves the treatment of addiction primarily as a disease. No direct connection to AA that I can find.

Quote:

---

3. NAADAC, the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors

---

A worldwide professional organization for addiction treatment professionals ... no direct relationship to AA that I can find. I suppose it is possible that some counselors in AA are members, but that hardly qualifies as an AA supported organization.

Quote:

---

4. The Hazelden Foundation

---

An organization supporting the 12-step approach to drug and alcohol addiction and lifelong treatment. While similar in method to AA, certainly not part of AA. Many treatment programs are modeled on variations of the 12-step method ... this no more means they are part of AA than the fact I wear a uniform in "LAPD Blue" and operate under a policy manual similar to theirs means that I am part of the Los Angeles Police Department.

No one is asking you to like AA or even to agree with the 12-step approach. But, it is clear that AA as an organization is apolitical.

To blame MADD and drug and alcohol treatment providers for current DUI laws is somewhat silly. None of these enact laws. MADD and some of the providers might LOBBY for laws, but they do not enact them. And if we think OUR DUI laws are draconian, we need to look at some of the laws in many European nations!

If people feel that DUI laws are too strict, they are free to lobby for relaxed laws ... I doubt you will find a politician who will fight under such a banner, but you never know. Personally, I think they are too relaxed. Good thing *I* don't make the laws, huh?

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting panther10758

---

None of those groups are funded by AA wher eyou getting your info.

---

Fact:Marty Mann, the first woman to get and stay sober in AA founded the National Council on Alcoholism which then became the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. These agencies are constantly getting/asking/lobbying (however you choose to phrase it) for government money for counselors to push the 12 step method.
They get it too. I'm not opposed to getting them the help, I just think that if the stats aren't there...they shouldn't get the money. When they get the money for the counseling..they get panther. No offense here but do you have a formal college degree in psychology? States vary on getting a counseling certificates. Some states actually dont even require one. My point being this..if I'm at the point where my life is out of control and I can't manage sqaut and I finally reach out to get help and I get someone with these qualifications, I'm gonna drink more!

I could inform you of Dr Ruth Fox if your interested.

Go back and reread my post. What I said was this: AA per say as an organization does not do the lobbying themself using the AA name. They have the money to create organiztions (at least 5 that I'm aware of) that are heavily funded by AA and they do the lobbying. Don't be fooled, it's still a wolf just wearing sheeps clothing.

I specifically said that AA doesn't do the work themself! I didnt assume anything...you did.

Carl
I don't have time tonight but will send you a PM regarding Dr Ruth Fox who founded ASAM and her beliefs on AA's 12 step programs and how she went about proving it. You seem open minded enough to actually read some of it. Have to be to work early.

I'm certainly willing to read it, but I also glanced at some of the info looking her up on the web.

Having been actively involved in the recovery community on both the local policy and the implementation side in two different counties and for more than a dozen years (last meeting at the county level was last night, in fact, with the county health services director and others), I have seen many successful 12-step based programs. So, while it may not work for some people, it works for others. No ONE program works for everyone - and even AA counselors will generally tell you that. But, like with ANY people, you get different types of counselors ... some good, some bad. But, it's a volunteer organization - I have seen the same pattern with youth sports!

Two of the most successful drug and alcohol treatment programs I knew of were in San Diego County. These programs both contained two components that were often attributed to their success rates: They were Christian based, and they were modeled on the 12-step system. Oh, they also operated on the "tough love" idea - you towed the line or you were gone. Both programs were largely self-supporting with only some public monies provided. Their recidivism rate was astronomically lower than any other program.

Advocating for money for programs you believe in is a time honored tradition. There are medical, legal, educational, and all manner of lobbying organizations that seek money for their constituencies even if they might contain programs that are sometimes controversial. Planned Parenthood and the Boy Scouts are two examples of groups that receive (or have received) funding from different sources but who have significant detractors and fervent supporters.

Remember, AA is largely a volunteer organization where people come and go as they please. Of course they will have a high recidivism rate - they accept anyone and everyone ... come as you will, when you like. And virtually NO ONE walks the line the first time ... ergo, they are a recidivist.

Until the attendee is willing to accept that they have a problem and are willing to take the steps necessary to get help to handle their problem, NO program will succeed. Just take a look at Lindsay Lohan and others in Hollywood and New York who spend tens of thousands of dollars for programs that look good, are well touted, and cater to the celebrity's whims ... but, soon after they get out they are involved in drunken debauchery. Even the directors of these programs go on TV and say that until the client is willing to accept that they have a problem and are willing to address it, even their expensive and fancy program does not work. And THAT is the key ... accepting that there is a problem. As many AA attendees are still on the fringe, they will - of course - be recidivists. However, once they have made the movement to recovery, what other program is there to help them maintain their sobriety? Well, what other program that is FREE? I know people with decades of sobriety that STILL attend AA or NA meetings once or twice a week - at least - and they credit those meetings with maintaining their sobriety. Great!

Heck, if they went to church and lit a candle in prayer, I'd be happy with that!

Why blame AA/NA for the human character (fallibility) of its attendees?

And if even ONE person is helped by AA/NA or similar groups, what's so bad about that? It doesn't cost anyone money to go - unless they want to donate - and if they get something out of it, great!

- Carl

Carl, heres the problem: AA seeks to get people to quit drinking all together. This is a very, very bad approach. Instead they should encourage attendees simply to REDUCE their alcohol consumption!! Nothing wrong with alcohol taken in moderation!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Carl, heres the problem: AA seeks to get people to quit drinking all together. This is a very, very bad approach. Instead they should encourage attendees simply to REDUCE their alcohol consumption!! Nothing wrong with alcohol taken in moderation!!!!

---

Nothing wrong with quitting, either. For many people - particularly those that have developed a problem (which is why they seek help) - there really is no such thing as moderation. Addicts, by nature, cannot control their intake very well. I found that I was incapable of moderating my alcohol consumption, that's why I had to quit. I don't care if someone else drinks, and neither do the vast and overwhelming majority of people who participate in AA. But, drinking is not for me.

AA doesn't go out and actively seek adherents. But, if you have a problem and are willing to acknowledge that you need help, AA can offer some support. Certainly there may well be some zealots out there, but I have yet to ever run into one. If they are, they are in the minority.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Nothing wrong with quitting, either. For many people - particularly those that have developed a problem (which is why they seek help) - there really is no such thing as moderation. Addicts, by nature, cannot control their intake very well. I found that I was incapable of moderating my alcohol consumption, that's why I had to quit. I don't care if someone else drinks, and neither do the vast and overwhelming majority of people who participate in AA. But, drinking is not for me.

AA doesn't go out and actively seek adherents. But, if you have a problem and are willing to acknowledge that you need help, AA can offer some support. Certainly there may well be some zealots out there, but I have yet to ever run into one. If they are, they are in the minority.

- Carl

---

Carl, you're a cop, If I had to go through the crap you do I would probably be an alcoholic too!!!

Actually I have a question for ya. You seem like a religious man. (no offense)

Does the bible condemn drinking?? A local Baptist preacher told me that consumption of alcohol is considered a "grave sin". He has this crazy idea that the wine the bible refers to is actually unfermented grape juice. When challanged, he was unable to back up his preposterous claims! Does his statements hold any truth?

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Carl, you're a cop, If I had to go through the crap you do I would probably be an alcoholic too!!!

---

Ah, but my problems occurred before I even entered the academy. I quit about the time I started the academy, so we can't blame my situation on the job.

Quote:

---

Actually I have a question for ya. You seem like a religious man. (no offense)

---

Why would I be offended at that? :)

Quote:

---

Does the bible condemn drinking?? A local Baptist preacher told me that consumption of alcohol is considered a "grave sin".

---

There are some that say it does, but what it condemns is drunkenness, not drinking.

Romans 13:13 ... "Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy."

Drunkenness is associated with sinful behavior in many places in the bible. Sometimes, I think, there are men who interpret this to mean that any consumption of alcohol to be equated to drunkenness when this just is not true. In Christ's time, water was often unsafe to drink, and wine was common. So, to say that drinking was bad one has to say that Christ sinned.

Of course there are some that say the fermented grape is okay, but distilled spirits are not ... and on and on.

Quote:

---

He has this crazy idea that the wine the bible refers to is actually unfermented grape juice. When challanged, he was unable to back up his preposterous claims! Does his statements hold any truth?

---

Water in that day and age was often stagnant and unclean ... people got ill from drinking water that had been sitting for a time, so wine was more common. I do not believe that they had the capability to keep juice as juice, and any sugar from the grape would have naturally fermented. While the wine of the time was likely not always fermented for a high alcohol content, it would naturally develop that way.

This is actually a debate that has been raging for some time. But, if the wine were actually grape juice, why would the bible condemn the excessive drinking of it?

- Carl

Carl-
I completetly agree with about 98% of what you said. If AA helps ONE person, its enough for me. My problem with the funding thing is that tax dollars go to programs and money is given to these programs and is used to pay for unqualified people. The counselors are fast tracked with this money and are treating someone with a "disease" and really have no formal education. It does do harm to people. Huge emotional harm and further hinders their ability to stop. More than 90% of the time, the patient isn't even aware that the counselor isn't as qualified as they appear to be. If you were a hostage in bank robbery and you manage to call 911 for help and a security guard (with no gun) shows up to try and save you, sure you'd be happy that you were saved but when the truth came out that this is what the real police sent, you'd be pissed.
If I need a cop and call 911, I better get Carl and not Barney Fife thats all I'm saying. Its the political side of it that bothers me not the healing portion.

I personally believe that whether someone drinks or not is a choice. I also don't believe that God or the bible have anything to do with it. But thats a personal choice. For the record, I'm Christian and work for a Catholic organization.

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

They have the money to create organiztions (at least 5 that I'm aware of) that are heavily funded by AA and they do the lobbying.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

I have 4 off hand:
1. NCADD, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
2. ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine
3. NAADAC, the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors
4. The Hazelden Foundation

---

Okay.... so it's four? And the evidence you have of any funding, let alone heavy funding by AA is... ?

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

My problem with the funding thing is that tax dollars go to programs and money is given to these programs and is used to pay for unqualified people.

---

What tax dollars go into AA?

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

The counselors are fast tracked with this money and are treating someone with a "disease" and really have no formal education.

---

Since when does AA have counselors?

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

It does do harm to people. Huge emotional harm and further hinders their ability to stop.

---

The evidence of this being what?

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

More than 90% of the time, the patient isn't even aware that the counselor isn't as qualified as they appear to be.

---

Again, what counselors?

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

If you were a hostage in bank robbery and you manage to call 911 for help and a security guard (with no gun) shows up to try and save you, sure you'd be happy that you were saved but when the truth came out that this is what the real police sent, you'd be pissed.

---

Why? I was saved, wasn't I?

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

Its the political side of it that bothers me not the healing portion.

---

The political side being what?

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

I personally believe that whether someone drinks or not is a choice. I also don't believe that God or the bible have anything to do with it. But thats a personal choice.

---

And that has what to do with the discussion?

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

My problem with the funding thing is that tax dollars go to programs and money is given to these programs and is used to pay for unqualified people.

---

I don't know of much money that goes to AA from government sources. i don't know that there is NOT any such funding, but I can say it is a very minuscule portion of a county's budget if it does exist ... it's not even a blip on my county's budget.

I venture to guess that if you look at any government programs you will see some small support going to programs with people that can be deemed "unqualified ... but, AA doesn't have "counselors", per se. They use facilitators, mentors, sponsors, etc. I have yet to ever meet a "counselor" employed through AA.

Quote:

---

If you were a hostage in bank robbery and you manage to call 911 for help and a security guard (with no gun) shows up to try and save you, sure you'd be happy that you were saved but when the truth came out that this is what the real police sent, you'd be pissed.

---

Apples and oranges ... you CHOOSE to go to AA. Perhaps if you had no choice in the matter, and were being told you were getting a certified counselor, you might have a point. But, that's not what people are told in any court that I am aware of out here, anyway.

Quote:

---

I personally believe that whether someone drinks or not is a choice. I also don't believe that God or the bible have anything to do with it. But thats a personal choice. For the record, I'm Christian and work for a Catholic organization.

---

I never said that God or the Bible had anything to do with it, either ... though the Bible DOES preach against drunkenness. I, too, adhere to the theory that such consumption is a choice and not a "disease", per se. But, why demonize AA because it does not work for everybody? NO program or system works for everybody.

- Carl

To add a little religion & the use of alcohol both to this thread:

A preacher was giving his Sunday morning service on the perils of using alcohol. He said, "We should take all beer and dump it into the river." The congregation said, "Amen." The preacher then continued and said, "We should take all vodka and dump it into the river." The congregation said, "Amen." The preacher then finished his sermon by saying, "We should take all liquor and dump it into the river." The congregation again said, "Amen."

It was then time for the hymn. The preacher said, "Would you all please open your hymn books to page 17 and we shall sing "Shall We Gather at the River."

Quote:

---

Quoting Betty3

---

To add a little religion & the use of alcohol both to this thread:

A preacher was giving his Sunday morning service on the perils of using alcohol. He said, "We should take all beer and dump it into the river." The congregation said, "Amen." The preacher then continued and said, "We should take all vodka and dump it into the river." The congregation said, "Amen." The preacher then finished his sermon by saying, "We should take all liquor and dump it into the river." The congregation again said, "Amen."

It was then time for the hymn. The preacher said, "Would you all please open your hymn books to page 17 and we shall sing "Shall We Gather at the River."

---

Amen to that!!

My favorite song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Bvpd3aSZU

Quote:

---

Quoting Betty3

---

To add a little religion & the use of alcohol both to this thread:

A preacher was giving his Sunday morning service on the perils of using alcohol. He said, "We should take all beer and dump it into the river." The congregation said, "Amen." The preacher then continued and said, "We should take all vodka and dump it into the river." The congregation said, "Amen." The preacher then finished his sermon by saying, "We should take all liquor and dump it into the river." The congregation again said, "Amen."

It was then time for the hymn. The preacher said, "Would you all please open your hymn books to page 17 and we shall sing "Shall We Gather at the River."

---

The temperance minister admonished his congregation, "There are more than 100 bars in this city, and I haven't been to one of them."

A voice from the back of the church asked, "Which one is that?"

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

The temperance minister admonished his congregation, "There are more than 100 bars in this city, and I haven't been to one of them."

A voice from the back of the church asked, "Which one is that?"

---

Ive always wanted to open a bar across from a church. This way members wont have to drive so far after services are out. I'm such a thoughtful person.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

The temperance minister admonished his congregation, "There are more than 100 bars in this city, and I haven't been to one of them."

A voice from the back of the church asked, "Which one is that?"

---

Funny - I'll have to try & remember that one.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Ive always wanted to open a bar across from a church. This way members wont have to drive so far after services are out. I'm such a thoughtful person.

---

Yes, blueeagle, you are certainly a thoughtful person. Who else would have thought of such a considerate thing to do.

Quote:

---

Quoting Betty3

---

Yes, blueeagle, you are certainly a thoughtful person. Who else would have thought of such a considerate thing to do.

---

Look, I'm all about helping people. There's NO reason why these bible-thumping fanatics should have to drive x amount of miles to get a cold beer! My ambition is to open a bar directly across from the local baptist church! That place (the bar) will be full every Sunday afternoon! Just expect the church-goers to be very unreceptive towards each other. Baptist don't recognize each other in the bar/beer store. No group prayer. :p

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

How do you know that I'm not an ex drinker who has managed to stay sober in AA for the last 15 yrs? You don't!

---

Yes, actually, we do.

Nobody with 15 years in AA would be so ignorant about it. Or be lobbying so hard against the gifts it brings. Pretty much a dead giveaway.

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

AA per say as an organization does not do the lobbying themself using the AA name. They have the money to create organiztions (at least 5 that I'm aware of) that are heavily funded by AA and they do the lobbying. Don't be fooled, it's still a wolf just wearing sheeps clothing.

---

AA neither funds nor supports any causes outside of AA. It has no lobbyists. It pays for no lobbyists. Singleness of Purpose is one of the primary reasons that AA has been able to exist so successfully for 70 years when its predecessors have failed. The individual groups send money back to World Service Organization which barely covers overhead.

They accept no outside funding or support other than the voluntary member contributions.

And the nicest thing about AA is that you are allowed to think whatever you would like about them, Gigirle, and they will go on accomplishing their mission and saving lives and families just the same. Have at.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I think you are mistaking individuals within AA with organizations that may presumably lobby on their behalf ... and since they have no position, what exactly would be on their behalf?

Please, pray tell, what political position AA as an organization takes on any particular issue?

To my knowledge (as a friend of Bill W.) AA takes no political positions and endorses no legislation as a matter of course. Participants in AA/NA come from all walks of life and political stripes. They are not unified enough in political or legislative purpose to have any meaningful role in the political process. Not to mention the whole "anonymity" thing.

- Carl

---

"as long as we never argue these matters in private, we have no worry of arguing them in public.":) Or something to that effect.

Many persons have tried to tie their name with AA. In fact Bill W himself wanted AA to being a bit of a business supporting all kinds of things. Dr Bob (cofounder) coined the phrase "Keep it Simple" and kept Bill from his biggest weakest (outside of alcohol) his ego. If anyone has read the 12 traditions I posted it mentions everythig pretty muched discussed right there. Read them and educate yourself. Have people or even groups try to tie themselves to the AA name? Yes they have but never with AA approval and in many cases the tie went down in flames. The actress who voiced the demon in Exorcist is such an example. She shouted from roof tops about AA and how it saved her. She used her fame and soon thereafter drank again. She regained soberity and maintained but a lesson was learned