It is my contention that the public has no interest in the revocation of the drunk driver's license to drive, due to the hardship it places on wage-earners, but has a strong interest in the revocation of the drinking licenses of drunk drivers. They are mostly good drivers who are incompetent drinkers. They make the decision to sit behind the wheel while under the influence of alcohol, so it appears to me that it is the act of drinking that is of primary concern in court. Worst of all, I think, is that she was advanced into her unearned position of social reformer by pencil-toting academics like Drs. Her bail was reduced by half when she requested and got a postponement so she could receive intensive addiction treatment, as if it were some medical emergency.
Some juries are quite sympathetic toward the sacred alcoholic.
When they are confronted with the lofty image of a grateful, recovering alcoholic, they feel as though they are crucifying Jesus all over again. Addiction rehabs are political rehab, in every sense, and I am disgusted when justice is evaded through the masquerade of addictive disease.