DUI evaluations

[Micky Dee]

New bill targets analysis of DUI
Story Link Here!
Everett Herald, WASHINGTON State -

New bill targets analysis of DUI
Not all treatment providers support the legislation

After reading the article it sounds like there’s only <<< ONE >>> treatment provider that supports this legislation

Probation officials and some alcohol treatment providers are pushing legislation they say will close loopholes in drunken-driving laws and provide more effective treatment to alcohol abusers.

There they go aging! Loopholes loopholes loopholes... Whenever you hear them use words like that you know they are about to shoot some bull shit at you.

The proposal would require standard rules for treatment organizations that assess people who have been convicted of drunken driving, and more serious driving offenses such as vehicular homicide. In many cases, an assessment leads to court-required treatment.

So this law will in effect be telling the so-called treatment organizations how and what to say in their reports. If they are going to do that then why even have these "organizations" do these assessments at all ? Hell they might as well just let the local MADD members label every one. In the end it would be no different than what they are proposing.

The bill, however, is getting solid opposition from the state organization of treatment providers. The opposition comes partly because they say it would increase their costs and interfere with standard and recognized protocols for diagnosing people with chemical dependencies.

The latter sounds more like the real reason for the solid opposition.

The House version, HB 1200 is now in the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe, introduced the bill. He has bipartisan support from Democrats Al O'Brien of Mountlake Terrace and John Lovick of Mill Creek.

A Senate version of the same bill was introduced Friday by Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington.

"The name of the game is to be misdiagnosed so you don't have to pay for treatment and you can get your (driver's) license back faster," said Conrad Thompson, a probation officer in the Snohomish County District Court system.

Yes it’s just a game to these people, but not to those who have been accused. The above is really a very misleading statement of the truth. Oh I'm sure a small number of those who are accused do in fact go shopping as the probation officer contends. But if the DUI the assessments currently being done in Washington State are conducted in anyway like they are in the rest of the country then just the opposite is true.

In other words the vast majority of the "misdiagnosed" cases are where someone is assessed as being dependent or as having a chemical dependency to alcohol when they are NOT!!!! .

Thompson said he's worked on numerous drunken-driving bills over the last 30 years, and "this law would do more to protect the public than any I have worked on."

First they use Loopholes and now this guy invokes those lofty words "protect the public" as an excuse or justification. I believe Hitler's cronies use similar words as justification for attempting to exterminate Jewish race off the face of the earth. First they assessed them as being a diseased ridden, immoral race of sub human people. Then they justified their extermination as a means to "protect the public".

Greg Bauer, executive director of Alpine Recovery Services Inc. of Arlington is one of the few treatment providers who also is backing the bill.

It sounds like he is the only one!

His emphasis is making sure people's problems are known so that they can receive the proper treatment and not relapse into drinking or drug use.

Thompson illustrates the problem with one defendant he knows, who was required to get an alcohol evaluation after being charged with drunken driving.

The idea was to find out whether this driver needed treatment for an alcohol or drug problem.

The guy did some shopping around and found an evaluator who didn't require what Conrad believes was a complete evaluation, including a urinalysis and a police report about what happened when he was arrested.

The defendant minimized his drinking and the events surrounding his arrest.

Conrad figures something was wrong and required a second, more extensive evaluation - one that eventually recommended extensive treatment of the defendant's alcoholism.

The fact that both of these so-called professionals (Thompson the probation officer) and (Conrad) is even using the word alcoholism when talking about someone being evaluated is proof that he is just slinging bull. The truth is that no one is ever evaluated or assessed as being an “ALCOHOLIC!

For all intents the word alcoholism and alcoholic has been banished from the lexicon of the DUI assessment field. The term that has replaced it is ALCOHOL DEPENDENT. They can cast a much wider net with it.

The law would require evaluators to have an offenders' criminal history.

Oh yeah that’s really relevant at arriving at a so call "diagnoses". I guess if someone was charged with DUI 10 years ago but was found not guilty it's proof that they are suffering from an alcohol dependency. Witch HUNT!!

Offenders would have to submit to a urinalysis test to make sure that they aren't also using other drugs. One study showed that 60 percent of the people convicted of vehicular homicide in 2002 also had taken drugs other than alcohol.

Say What!! 60 percent of the people convicted of vehicular homicide in 2002 also had taken drugs other than alcohol!!!!

Notice they did not refer to these people as Drunk, Drugged, or impaired drivers. No, they do not want you to think too much about that fact that in 60% of the vehicular homicide cases in 2002 alcohol was not a real causal factor. Yet they were still called "Alcohol Related".

In addition to what's proposed, Thompson would like to see the law require evaluators to consider the police report about the drunken driving arrest in cases where the driver refused to take a breath test.

Oh Boy! Now how in the hell would that be relevant in arriving at a TRUE DIAGNOSES of someone with a real alcohol abuse problem, or as this guy would most likely say, an alcohol USE problem?

That sounds good, "until you look at it," said Linda Grant, executive director of treatment provider Evergreen Manor Inc. in Everett. She's a member of the Association of Alcohol and Addiction Programs, which is lobbying against the bill.

Many providers, including her business, serve low-income people. The costs of urinalysis would be borne by the providers in many cases, she said. Some of those providers might not be able to afford the extra cost, she added.

In addition, she said there's no uniform access now for evaluators to obtain criminal records. What's more, providers already use national standards in evaluating dependencies, Grant said.

"It's not that we don't want to see good quality work, and everybody tries for that," Grant said. "The vast majority of treatment providers really do want to do the right thing, but this is not a science. It's an art. The best we can do is follow national standards. Everybody wants the public protected."

Reporter Jim Haley: 425-339-3447 or haley@heraldnet.com
************************

...but this is not a science. It's an art

I think the above sums it up very nicely.

The intent of this new bill is simple. The want anyone and everyone to be rubberstamped and labeled as someone with an alcohol USE problem just because they have used alcohol. After all this is Washington State where they enacted a law that says even if the authorities do not follow the rules and regulations that govern the use of the breath testing machines their results are still to be used in a "LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PROSECUTION".
http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3029

What they want now is a law that will mandate that everyone be evaluated in a light most favorable to the prosecution and the DMV.

>>

[Micky Dee]

When someone is arrested for DUI they will, in most cases, be required to undergo a alcohol evaluation or assessment for the court. That EV or "assessment" will often follow that individual for years to come. It will be used as the bases for the local DMV / SOS to deny any relief or the reinstatement of that persons drivers license. And if you have the nerve to ask these people what their qualifications are you will get the runaround like the poster ROGUE link! did, or be threaten with a negative evaluation link!.
In the above article the treatment provider says.

• ...but this is not a science. It's an art ....
• ..providers already use national standards in evaluating dependencies....
• The best we can do is follow national standards. Everybody wants the public protected."

But who are these so called treatment providers and what national standards is she referring to?

In many cases they are NOT trained medical professionals or learned practitioners in the field, but nothing more than rubberstamping form filler out-ers. The fact is that in many cases the main aim of these alcohol evaluations to provide an evaluation that can be used in a "light most favorable to the prosecution", and subsequently the DMV, to continue to persecute these people for years to come. Not to protect the public from people that pose a real danger to public safety.

In my post about my friend Bruce I said that the the evaluator that did his original court ordered evaluation came right out and told him the following.

Bruce was classified as a level II, Dependent (Significant Risk). The evaluator said the ONLY REASON for this was his PREVIOUS ARREST. If not for that he would had classified him as a level 1 non-dependent (Minimal Risk) because there was no evidence of alcohol abuse, let alone real "Dependence" on alcohol.

He told him they were required to classify him as a level II, Dependent (Significant Risk) by the S.O.S. rules and if he did not the S.O.S would not except the evaluation.
http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4311#4311

At his last hearing requesting reinstatement of his driving privileges Bruce submitted a detailed report covering a 6 month period from a highly trained medical professional in the filed alcohol and chemical dependency. Because the hearing officer was unable to discredit the report of this highly trained and experienced medical professional he just choose to ignore it by using what the MADDness would call a "loophole" or "technically" in the administrative laws or rules by which these hearings are conducted. Instead the hearing officer just choose to go by the original court ordered evaluation that was done years earlier as a reason to deny any relief to Bruce. The technically the hearing officer used was the fact that Bruce's trained medical professional did not have the certification "license" to do evaluations for the SOS.

No Bruce's trained medical professional only had the letters M.D. after her name. On top of that she was a Board Certified Psychiatrist which means that she had been trained in psychiatry as well as medicine, and that she had passed an examination in the field of psychiatry. In addition to all this she had for the last 10 years devoted her practice solely to the treatment of people with REAL alcohol and chemical dependencies at a local medical facility. You see she was NOT part of the State's rubberstamping Alcohol evaluation system. No she did not have some silly stupid letters like L.D.A.A.C or something like that. ( Licensed Drug Alcohol Abuse Counselor) after her name.

So what qualifies someone as a DUI Evaluator?
http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2904#2904

Well in most states in order to be part of the State's rubberstamping Alcohol evaluation system all you have to do is take some night course and pay a fee for the license. For less than grand, in a month or two, you too can be in the Rubberstamping Alcohol evaluation business and start doing these "evaluations" out of the basement of your house. You do not need any medical training or any training at all, except how to fill out the forms, and say exactly what the system wants you to say.

Bruce's trained medical professional was and is today a M.D. and a board certified psychiatrist and a credited practicing expert in the filed. She did not need any additional silly letters like B.A. or B.A.M. after her name to determine that Bruce was not an alcohol dependent and posed no risk what so ever!

The doctor was flabbergasted upon hearing that the SOS in Illinois had totally dismissed her evaluation with out even considering it. She consulted with her associates and they also could not believe it.

So here you had a group of professionals that worked day in and day out with people who had REAL problems and these professionals were totally oblivious to the way the state was falsely stigmatizing and labeling people as being Alcohol dependent purely for political reasons.

The doctor even attempted to call Jesse White, the Secretary of State of Illinois, to express her outrage but was just told to write him a letter, which she did.

It was signed not only by her but by her fellow associates. In it she herself used the words "Witch Doctor" "Witch Craft" "Unethical" preposterous assumptions, and many more all to no avail.

All Bruce received in response was a 2 sentence letter which basically said he could wait another 6 months and pay another 500 dollars and then request another hearing and try again.

One can not help to believe if that if it was an email they would have added a few LOL emotions at the end of it.

After all that is precisely what they were doing to Bruce, this doctor, and her associates. HA... HA.....

SO what national standards was that treatment provider referring to in the article.

Well according to the State of Illinois its the following

77 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CH. I, § 2060"Substance Abuse or Dependence" means maladaptive patterns of substance use leading to a clinically significant impairment or distress as defined in the American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

So what exactly is this DSM-IV?
At one time you could get access to it on the net and at you local library. But no more. You see its copyrighted and belongs to American Psychiatric Association. Super Secret Stuff!!! More like they want you to PAY for it!!

Its basically a psychiatric "bible" of "mental illness". This book is used by most every field as the guideline for categorizing, labeling, people with "mental disorders". It also has the effect of setting the stage for accepted terminology, constructs, and basic viewpoints on the subject. A language in its own, by it's very nature, sets the pattern for how any subject is perceived and understood. Its not always so much what is said in the DSM, as what is implied and not said.

"To read about the evolution of the DSM is to know this: It is an entirely political document. What it includes, what it does not include, are the result of intensive campaigning, lengthy negotiating, infighting, and power plays."
- Louise Armstrong,
And They Call It Help: The Psychiatric Policing of America

The entire system of thought "makes sense" only within it's own framework. But being "logically consistent" implies nothing about truth or the relation to actual existing things, workability or quality of results.

To read more about how a subject can be "logical" and "make sense, but have absolutely nothing with observable reality go here http://www.sntp.net/essay1_4.htm#logic

Various people and groups promote "social equality" and desire to get all people "equal". This is an impossibility, and if you notice, it is usually done through some type of force.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism No. 30 PH 359 October 1995

Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence
Diagnosis is the process of identifying and labeling specific conditions such as alcohol abuse or dependence (1). Diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse and dependence reflect the consensus of researchers as to precisely which patterns of behavior or physiological characteristics constitute symptoms of these conditions (1). Diagnostic criteria allow clinicians to plan treatment and monitor treatment progress; make communication possible between clinicians and researchers; enable public health planners to ensure the availability of treatment facilities; help health care insurers to decide whether treatment will be reimbursed; and allow patients access to medical insurance coverage (1-3).

From the above one thing is clear. One of their primary motives was to label it in such a way so they could get the insurance companies to PAY THEM MONEY for their so called "Treatments". After all this is just part of the Billion dollar a year DUI industry.

In response to perceived deficiencies in DSM-I and DSM-II, to establish a research base for the diagnostic criteria of alcoholism.

Def: Perceived
.To become aware of through the senses
.Detected by instinct or inference rather than by recognized perceptual cues

But what they call research is often nothing more than a compilation of superstitions, false assumptions, and anything else they want based on their bias subjective instinct and gut feelings. Voodoo!!!

So according to them alcohol abuse or dependence "reflects the consensus of researchers" or to put it another way... what ever they want to say it is. .

Diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse and dependence have evolved over time. As new data become available, researchers revise the criteria to improve their reliability, validity, and precision....

Translation. We have changed it so we can label even more people for whom we can mandate "Treatment" and make even more money.

Formulations of diagnostic criteria continued with the American Psychiatric Association's publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, First Edition (DSM-I), and Second Edition (DSM-II) (10,11). Alcoholism WAS categorized in both editions as a subset of personality disorders, homosexuality, and neuroses (2,12).

Notice they say alcoholism WAS categorized right along side of disorders like , homosexuality.

These criteria were the first to be based on research rather than on subjective judgment and clinical experience alone (5). Though designed for use in clinical practice, they were primarily developed to stimulate continued research for the development of even more useful diagnostic criteria.

Unfortunately much of the so called "research" is nothing BUT subjective judgments and assumptions.

The DSM Criteria
Researchers and clinicians in the United States usually rely on the DSM diagnostic criteria. The evolution of diagnostic criteria for behavioral disorders involving alcohol reached a turning point in 1980 with the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (14). In DSM-III, for the first time, the term "alcoholism" was dropped in favor of two distinct categories labeled "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol dependence" (1,2,12,15). In a further break from the past, DSM-III included alcohol abuse and dependence in the category "substance use disorders" rather than as subsets of personality disorders (1,2,12).

With a stroke of a pen they done away with alcoholism altogether. It doesn't exist any more except in the mind of the public. In addition they done away with the idea that homosexuality was a personality disorder. Then they MOVED was was called alcohol abuse and dependence into a new category they now call just "substance USE disorders".

Note that is USE and not abuse. So according to them anyone who has ever used any amount of alcohol could now be deemed to be crazy and suffering form a mental disorder! You see now they had a much wider net to catch and label people with.

The fact that they done away with the term of "alcoholism" is probably what pisses off those people over at "Big Alchol.com" as they sound like they are recovering alcoholics themselves who want to blame somebody or something for their problems with alcohol. What they do not realized that removing alcohol as a disease was not due to a conspiracy by "BIG ALCOHOL" but at the behest of the prohibitionists so they could label anyone that used any amount of alcohol as a having a alcohol USE disorder. Not abuse but USE!!!!!!

The DSM was revised again in 1987 (DSM-III-R) (16). In DSM-III-R, the category of dependence was expanded to include some criteria that in DSM-III were considered symptoms of abuse. For example, the DSM-III-R described dependence as including both physiological symptoms, such as tolerance and withdrawal, and behavioral symptoms, such as impaired control over drinking (17). In DSM-III-R, abuse became a residual category for diagnosing those who never met the criteria for dependence, but who drank despite alcohol-related physical, social, psychological, or occupational problems, or who drank in dangerous situations, such as in conjunction with driving (17). According to Babor, this conceptualization allowed the clinician to classify meaningful aspects of a patient's behavior even when that behavior was not clearly associated with dependence (18).

You see there you have it. Its just like they did with the dummying down of the meaning of "Drunk Driving" Now just using any amount of alcohol and you can be classified as having an alcohol USE disorder.

Or to put it in their language or terminology, someone who has consumed even a small amount alcohol but shows no negative effects could eaisly be classified as follows.

305.00 to 305.93
Nondependent alcohol abuse, unspecified drunkenness.

Simply Put
Your a DRUNK if you have ever drunk drop of alcohol in your life!!!

Drunk a drop = DRUNK!

So going back to what that Linda Grant, treatment provider, said in the article .

...but this is not a science. It's an art

Its an ART alright.

A BLACK ART derived from the MADDness!!

..

[jeanne_pruett]

One can not help to believe if that if it was an email they would have added a few LOL emotions at the end of it.

Nah. I think they'd put these instead.

[ems]

Ahhh my neck of the woods. I just wanted to give you a little bit of a background on two of the legislator's in the story. John Lovick is a recently(within the last year or two) retired state patrol sargent. Al O'brien is a retired Seattle police officer.

I believe knowing a person's background can really enlighten you on the reason's behind a legislator motives.

Let me give you an example: Before the .08 per se law had been passed in washington in 1998 the law had been pushed by a number of legislator's but always died in the process. It seemed that a legislator who happened to be a defense attorney always said in caucus meetings that lowering the BAC would not lower dui fatlities but would instead unfairly punish low bac social drinkers. Well this legislator got appointed to a judgeship and a year later the .08 bac law is passed.

Remember the job of the legislature is not to pass good laws it is to get re-elected.

EMS