Aside from the brilliant extension of the aphorism I can concur with Qapgop here.
During my adventurous high school career I had less-than-good reason to spend about three and one-half years in somewhat substandard state-run housing. None months on the 24 hour plan and the rest as a day kid.
Most of the kids there with me had serious drinking and drug addiction issues that led them to be there in the first place. That is, the behaviors that got them into their own jams were directly the result of their dependency. Those kids tended to stay at the full-day level longer than those not with those issues, unsurprisingly. They also had, no fooling, up to three or four hours per day spent in programs to provide education and enhancement about alcohol and drug use.
Most of them learned to say the right things and become virtual encyclopedias about the issue and the problems and consequences. All had to sign statements prior to release about the potential consequences of falling back into their old habits. Yet as much as 50% of them were using again within six months in some form or another and we’d see them again, newly banged up, when they fell off the wagon.
Here’s the kicker, though: a 50% success rate was considered wildly successful for the program. The folks running it couldn’t have been happier in knowing that at least they were getting through to SOME of the habitual users.
I did not get caught again. My DUI was in February 1990- I got sober in March 1991. I don’t think the DUI was truly a contributing factor. It was just one more bad thing that seemed to happen to me when I drank…
And Jonathan, I would say (based on my personal experience) that any treatment program boasting of a 50% success rate is lying it’s ass off. 10% of people SEEM to stay sober for at least a year, but even that number feels a bit high to me.
He certainly is in the matter of drink driving, and I agree he should be in prison (indeed, he more or less does too, though he certainly doesn’t like it).
But he has no other criminal aspects to his behavior - he’s honest, peaceable, altruistic, doesn’t take advantage of people. Just has one serious defect.
as a NZer we are very used to random breath testing - its no more intrusive than the copper sticking his head in the car window - the biggest annoyance is the delay the roadblock causes. You get stopped for ANY traffic offence at night and you expect to be tested. This ranges anywhere from forgetting to turn on your lights to speeding, right up to running the red light. Most police carry some sort of “sniffer” that detects alcohol - if alcohol is detected then you go for an actual test.
Living in Singapore - we also have random testing. My biggest annoyance was the day I got tested after drinking, I passed - but my details were recorded anyway and it is on my record.
Random testing does make a big difference to the casual drinker - you know that if you drink and drive you WILL be stopped. This means you take pains to stay below the limit and not get drunk. A few beers during a game or over dinner - fine. Getting shitfaced after 5 or 6 hours at the pub, you know that at some point you will get caught and it will hurt (big fine, loss of license etc)