Raymond Bourque arrested for Driving Drunk

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Your Calgary Flames!

Let me tell you once again I don't excuse anyone's actions who would drink and drive. If I choose to not swear and talk the way you are confuses you then so be it.

Originally Posted by Your Calgary Flames!

I think what bothered me was some posters calling others idiots when the fact is that there are truly people out there that have a disease that they can't control.

This is an excuse. It bothers you that posters call drunk drivers "idiots"? Drunk drivers are selfish idiots, to say the least.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...6&postcount=59
This whole post was an excuse on how they can't take actions to prevent themselves from drinking and driving. Which is really actually insulting to people who are fighting addictions. You've said multiple times they don't have control. They do, at least when it comes to driving.

You've excused their behaviour by equating alcoholism and the compulsion to drink with drunk driving. They are not the same.

Alcoholics fighting with their disease may not be able to stop themselves from grabbing a drink. But after that first drink, or that second drink, or that third drink, they have ample opportunity to call a cab, call a friend, look up bus routes, give their keys to their bartender, or lock their keys in their car. By choosing not to do so, they are choosing to drive drunk. It's a free choice that they, like everyone else, have. It's not part of the disease. That's not a part of alcoholism. They do not have a compulsion to drink and drive. It's an absurd fallacy. They chose not to do so because they are dicks who are okay with putting other people's lives at risk based on "convenience" and selfishness, again not because of the disease.

I can, and do, have all the sympathy in the world for people fighting addictions. But that is not the same as driving drunk, they are no where near the same. I can and will condemn anyone who gets behind the wheel drunk, and anyone who tries to excuse that action.

Originally Posted by Your Calgary Flames!

I hope you get what I mean. It had nothing to do with saying it's okay. But these people don't care about anything but there disease.

This is not true at all. As someone also with first hand experience, like I'm sure many many of us do, that's just simply insulting. It really is. You can still be an alcoholic and care about loved ones. You can be an alcoholic and take actions not to endanger the public.

Similar you don't have to be an alcoholic to drive drunk. You can just be a selfish #######.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Oh good, a competition of who can get more righteously indignant! I love these.

[Your Calgary Flames!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This is not true at all. As someone also with first hand experience, like I'm sure many many of us do, that's just simply insulting. It really is. You can still be an alcoholic and care about loved ones. You can be an alcoholic and take actions not to endanger the public.

Similar you don't have to be an alcoholic to drive drunk. You can just be a selfish #######.

Yes I apologize this came off in the wrong way.

They absolutely can care for loved ones. What I meant is With extreme alcoholism when they hit a certain frame of mind all common sense is thrown out the window. They will do what it takes to drink. yes, they can absolutely take steps to prevent themselves from having a car around. But many extreme alcoholics drink through out the day.

You can say that if they are good caring person they wouldn't have a vehicle in the first place. Problem from what I have seen is they are in denial.

Maybe this is just what I have seen first hand. Good person to begin with but once they are fueled by a certain amount of alcohol all common sense is gone.

I do agree with what you are saying as well. I just see it a bit differently. But once again I really am not justifying drinking and driving. Furthest from what Iam saying. I see how it can come off that way. But it is the absolute furthest from what I'm trying to explain.

[Minnie]

I have to agree, I really don't get the disconnect here. Alcoholism is defined as a disease, certainly. But there is still a choice between driving drunk and calling a cab - we rarely drink and if we do, we make arrangements for a way there and a way home or we walk to one of the pubs within 4 blocks of us - it's really not a hard thing to figure out and make concessions for. Had this argument yesterday with someone over a different case, wherein she was calling the driver, who in this particular case, killed people (but he walked away, of course), a victim of "bad choices."

Yeah, NO. He's not a victim. He knew he was going out partying. He easily could have made prior arrangements to get to the party - Uber, conventional taxi, a friend, the bus, crawled there on his hands and knees, whatever. He didn't. He drove there, got plastered and made the choice to drive home. He isn't a victim. A victim has no choice in the circumstances that occur (accident/crime/whatever) that either kill them or affect their lives so completely as to change them forever. The drunk driver that kills or injures someone is many things but victim is not one of them.

[Your Calgary Flames!]

Agreed

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Minnie

I have to agree, I really don't get the disconnect here. Alcoholism is defined as a disease, certainly. But there is still a choice between driving drunk and calling a cab - we rarely drink and if we do, we make arrangements for a way there and a way home or we walk to one of the pubs within 4 blocks of us - it's really not a hard thing to figure out and make concessions for. Had this argument yesterday with someone over a different case, wherein she was calling the driver, who in this particular case, killed people (but he walked away, of course), a victim of "bad choices."

Yeah, NO. He's not a victim. He knew he was going out partying. He easily could have made prior arrangements to get to the party - Uber, conventional taxi, a friend, the bus, crawled there on his hands and knees, whatever. He didn't. He drove there, got plastered and made the choice to drive home. He isn't a victim. A victim has no choice in the circumstances that occur (accident/crime/whatever) that either kill them or affect their lives so completely as to change them forever. The drunk driver that kills or injures someone is many things but victim is not one of them.

This is getting pretty far from the point of this thread, unless I missed the update that said that Ray Bourque is an alcoholic...

Nevertheless, it seems pretty weird to accept that alcoholism is a disease, which in itself is still debatable, but then turn around and say that an alcoholics choices are not driven by their disease.

It is also very odd to me that we expect people whose decisioning process is too impaired to vote or consent to sex or sign a legal contract or drive etc, yet we expect them to know not to drive. Basically we recognize that their judgement is poor in all areas, except in one of the most important areas, deciding to drive.

That being said, this looks even worse on Bourque because even though his judgement was no doubt awful at that point in time, I have a hard time believing he had 20 drinks (or whatever) randomly and couldn't have made plans to get home when he was still sober or even just a couple of drinks in. Also, as usual we hear nothing about where he was or who he was with. I doubt he was getting slammed by himself and his companions bear some of the responsibility for not making sure that he was gonna get home safely.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

This is getting pretty far from the point of this thread, unless I missed the update that said that Ray Bourque is an alcoholic...

Given the fact this is the fourth time he's been caught drunk driving, how rare it is to actually get caught (gotta be less than 1/100), and how drunk he was, I wouldn't be surprised if getting hammered and driving is something he does routinely. Which suggests he has a drinking problem of some kind.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

It is also very odd to me that we expect people whose decisioning process is too impaired to vote or consent to sex or sign a legal contract or drive etc, yet we expect them to know not to drive. Basically we recognize that their judgement is poor in all areas, except in one of the most important areas, deciding to drive.

Yeah, it seems pretty obvious that alcoholics have tend to have low self-control in the first place. Once they're hammered, it's pretty unlikely they're going to do the right thing. And if they demonstrate enough foresight and discipline to plan a ride ahead of time, they're probably not a rampaging alcoholic in the first place. And that's not even taking into consideration how self-destructive a lot of alcoholics are.

They're not victims. But the nature of their addiction means they're unlikely to make smart choices when it comes to a lot of things in life, including driving.

[Your Calgary Flames!]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, it seems pretty obvious that alcoholics have tend to have low self-control in the first place. Once they're hammered, it's pretty unlikely they're going to do the right thing. And if they're demonstrate enough foresight and discipline to plan a ride ahead of time, they're probably not a rampaging alcoholic in the first place. And that's not even taking into consideration how self-destructive a lot of alcoholics are.

They're not victims. But the nature of their addiction means they're unlikely to make smart choices when it comes to a lot of things in life, including driving.

I think you are pretty spot on with what I meant. I was not talking about the person who goes out every evening drinking. More so the alcoholic who's life is dictated by it.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Having a disease that destroys yourself is one thing, but the minute it crosses into endangering others it's another level. I know it's not easy to deal with, but allowing that behaviour (driving) is like giving a psychopath a gun.

I think the best investment we could make as a society would be mandatory re-hab centres for alcoholics and drug addicts. They clog up the health system and have the biggest costs to society (crime, etc.). Total violation of personal liberty, but I think it would be worth it.

Maybe we could set up some sort of center for them outside of the city? Perhaps a camp of some sort?

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Having a disease that destroys yourself is one thing, but the minute it crosses into endangering others it's another level. I know it's not easy to deal with, but allowing that behaviour (driving) is like giving a psychopath a gun.

I think the best investment we could make as a society would be mandatory re-hab centres for alcoholics and drug addicts. They clog up the health system and have the biggest costs to society (crime, etc.). Total violation of personal liberty, but I think it would be worth it.

Mandatory re-hab centres? Ya, forcing an addict to get help always turns out roses. In fact, I couldn't think of a better way for addicts to "clog up the health system and have the biggest cost to society" than forcing every addict to go to treatment whether they want it or not.

The biggest of the many problems with your idea is that it absolutely 100% without question will not work.

[skudr248]

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

Mandatory re-hab centres? Ya, forcing an addict to get help always turns out roses. In fact, I couldn't think of a better way for addicts to "clog up the health system and have the biggest cost to society" than forcing every addict to go to treatment whether they want it or not.

The biggest of the many problems with your idea is that it absolutely 100% without question will not work.

Ya, I suspect the efficacy would be below 5%. But it would get these people off the streets for ~30 days at a time. Maybe it helps the homeless problem, too. In theory, it could save money in other areas, but of course this concept would be crazy expensive and lack appropriate staffing, and the savings in other areas would never be realized.

Of course it's unrealistic and a bit dystopian, but I think we need a total paradigm shift when it comes to how we view substance abuse.

Also...leaving addicts to their own devices turns out roses?

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Of course it's unrealistic and a bit dystopian, but I think we need a total paradigm shift when it comes to how we view substance abuse.

Totally agree with that one. I would think that 100 years from now people would be absolutely shocked with how we deal with addiction. Much like we today view how people dealt with mental illness 100 years ago.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

Totally agree with that one. I would think that 100 years from now people would be absolutely shocked with how we deal with addiction. Much like we today view how people dealt with mental illness 100 years ago.

Is alcoholism something you are born with? As someone who is a bi-polar alcoholic, I scoff at the notion of the two being compared in any way.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Such as?

My wife is an ER physician. Many days she spends nearly half her time dealing with the same people. Keep that in mind next time you're waiting in agony for healthcare.

How about the recent spike in bike theft? Unrelated to perennial substance abusers?

In a perfect world these facilities would be clean and safe...of course that's easier said than done.

You are talking about forcing people into addiction treatment. That simply doesn't work. Also, you can't just lock someone up.

You are right, we do need to change the way we deal with these issues. This isn't it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Given the fact this is the fourth time he's been caught drunk driving, how rare it is to actually get caught (gotta be less than 1/100), and how drunk he was, I wouldn't be surprised if getting hammered and driving is something he does routinely. Which suggests he has a drinking problem of some kind.

What? Is that true?

I know he owns a restaurant in the Boston area and i assumed he was on his way home after being there all night.

I remember seeing him at a bar in Raleigh the night before the draft in 04 (yes that was the same night as another incident for me) and he was absolutely drilled. IIRC his kid was getting drafted the next day but he was with a gaggle of players and ex-players and there was no holding back for most of them. It was really quite the party.

[RougeUnderoos]

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, considering the circumstances.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...ving-1.3667205

Under Massachusetts law, Bourque's "admission to sufficient facts" plea will resolve the case without a guilty finding if he successfully completes a one-year term of probation.

A judge also suspended Bourque's driver's license for 45 days.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Kind of unrelated but just out of curiousity if say 2 beers put you over the legal limit would 6 beers be 3 times the legal limit? Or can that not really be assumed? When you say 3 times the legal limit it sounds horrible but just trying to put it into perspective. Something you can actually kind of relate it too.

How on earth can you drive with a BAC of 0.249? That is insane. That's not just drunk. That is blackout/passed out drunk.

I would assume it would take about 25 shots over an 8 hour period to get that high of a BAC.

[sun]

You'll get very few to admit that in here and the ones who freak and say "no way" probably don't drink or have no life outside of mommy's basement.

If we played "Guess That Poster", what percentage of CP regulars would guess correctly? 75%?

[alnigi]

How many impulsive, hateful posts on this forum are made in an inebriated state?