So, in the New York/Penn area not one court sends not even one person to AA, CA, NA? Cool.
I hear people say different that go to meetings there but hey, they are non drinking drunks so what do they know. ← sarcasm
Why do people not read what I said? I don’t think they should be sent there either. ← See, I agree…
Use any grounds you want to get them (the courts) to quit. Cool.
Why do they, (the courts) keep doing it? Is a ‘no brainer’ to most of the people posting to this thread. So this makes the judges stupid? {Oop’s, withdraw that statement thankyouverymuch }
So, in court, the judge says, “Here is a list of places you can go for x number of meetings instead of to jail, please pick one.” Probably not going to happen IMO.
Be happy,
If you can’t be happy
At least try to be good.
If that doesn’t fly,
Be careful;
And if that
Is not for you,
Please be sanitary! ← {it is a joke ya know – sorta ;)}
Except that those compulsive behaviors that don’t involve chemical substances because, well, they don’t involve chemical substances (at least not external ones). There’s a big difference between a compulsion to straighten your hair and a compulsion to do down to the store, buy some alcohol, go home, drink the alcohol, and get drunk. The former can be done wihtout conscious thought. The latter cannot; it requires a deliberate effort of will. Unless the alchoholic somehow simply cannot avopid being in a situation where he is surrounded by alcohol, there’s a big difference between the two cases.
Well, not properly, anyway. If someone challenged it on appeal, they’d win. But I don’t doubt that there are judges out there who don’t know the law on this.
Why not? In fact, in cases other than Warner where the judge did give a choice of treatment programs, his decision was upheld (see the article I linked earlier).
And if AA was the only thing in that area, the defendant just goes to jail, gets a free pass? Oh, there is always several treatment programs and facilities handy in all places.
That’s the of the troubles with passing laws instead of using common sense. Somebody always loses. Well, the world is round… I don’t have a perfect answer and I don’t think you do either but it is fun to try to come up with an answer instead of just tearing things down without having an alternitive workable idea waiting in the wings isn’t it?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; unless it is judged expedient to do any of these things.”
There you go. Just a little “common sense” is all!
