Is there logic to this???
Recovering Nicely
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 935
Is there logic to this???
I just read this news article in my paper. Is there any logic to this at all (cause I can't seem to see one)? This DA sends 1st time offenders of DWI's or under 21 zero tolerance kids to jail for a mandatory minimum of 45 days plus fines, etc. (which I'm OK with) but I don't see the logic in offering drug dealers the option of going to rehab and getting financial assistance. I just need to know if I'm missing something here. Thanks for your input.
DA: Drug dealers go straight or go to jail -- Newsday.com
DA: Drug dealers go straight or go to jail -- Newsday.com
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MO
Posts: 56
oh my queen!! NO idea there...my AH likes both....so double whammy for him maybe? Joking aside...are the effects of driving under the influence of alcohol worse than under the influence of drugs?? I don't even know...I choose to not do either one.. so truly I have no idea!?
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 98
As all of us here in SR know, everything involving addiction/alcoholism is messed up, from the people abusing the stuff to the spouse to the kids to the drug dealers to the liquer store owners to the moms and dads and right down to the little puppy who gets neglected because his alcoholic owner passed out for two days before (s)he fed the little guy...
The DA can't make any more sense out of this madness than we can...I assume the decision was based on some sort of logic or deductive reasoning based on stats or experience or some expert's hypothesis. When people are desperate to solve a problem that is not theirs to solve (you know, like me trying to nag my abf to 'slow down' or stealing his beer and dumping it out), they make some wacky choices (you know, like me staying with my abf's drunk a** for six whole years thinking he might change). Maybe the decision for that type of sentencing is a desperate stab to solve an unsolveable problem, kinda like how us codies try to 'fix' our A's. In this case, law enforcement is the codie in the relationship, and the city's druggies and alkies are the A's.
The DA can't make any more sense out of this madness than we can...I assume the decision was based on some sort of logic or deductive reasoning based on stats or experience or some expert's hypothesis. When people are desperate to solve a problem that is not theirs to solve (you know, like me trying to nag my abf to 'slow down' or stealing his beer and dumping it out), they make some wacky choices (you know, like me staying with my abf's drunk a** for six whole years thinking he might change). Maybe the decision for that type of sentencing is a desperate stab to solve an unsolveable problem, kinda like how us codies try to 'fix' our A's. In this case, law enforcement is the codie in the relationship, and the city's druggies and alkies are the A's.
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where the streets have no name
Posts: 1,078
Originally Posted by Barbara52 
The only logic I can come up with is that drug addiction and drug selling leads to violent crime whereas alcoholism doesn't (other than drunk driving). {shrug}
who says alcoholism doesn't lead to violent crime? i'd say alcoholism doesn't have the violent business component related to competing dealers(huge profit motive) from listening to recovering a's at AA i'd cannot say multiple types of criminality do not occur.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 4,290
Originally Posted by steve11694
who says alcoholism doesn't lead to violent crime? i'd say alcoholism doesn't have the violent business component related to competing dealers(huge profit motive) from listening to recovering a's at AA i'd cannot say multiple types of criminality do not occur.
I'm only speaking in terms of crime statistics and making a wild guess on what the logic behind this could be. More crimes tend to be committed by drug users and dealers than by alcoholics.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
