Club Military Base Aimed at Reducing Georgia DUI

So how many dui deaths have happened from civilians driving back from FT Stewart to Savannah? Or does that not matter? Who in their right mind opens a bar to battle alcoholism? Fort Stewart would be better served if the general in charge would prohibit alcohol on the base and provide better access to counseling for soldiers. The Army and Alcohol, AA. Until the generals in charge start working to fix the root problem, alcoholism, there will never be an end to dui deaths and soldiers. Our soldiers deserve more from their leaders than them taking the easy way out.

ok you sound totally confused and this is most likely because you've been listening to the MADD bullshit for TOO LONG! let's review some basic definitions that has to do with alcohol and stay with me here:
there's an ALCOHOLIC which is someone whose consumption of alcohol has reached unhealthy frequency and doses.in other words his pattern of consumption shows a high level of dependancy to the point where it negatively affects his/her daily interactions and functions.this could also be referred to as substance abuse. and there's an ALCOHOL DRINKER which is simply someone who drinks alcohol but in a manner that does not indicate abuse or addiction. and there's a DRUNK which is someone who's at a CERTAIN POINT of time became incapable of caring for himself or others as his judgement became significantly impaired due to excessive drinking. and then there's a DRUNK DRIVER which is someone who GOT DRUNK and DROVE a vehicle.and there's an IMPAIRED DRIVER which is someone who is NOT QUIET drunk but still incapable of operating a vehicle or machinery SAFELY.and then there's just a DRIVER WHO DRANK which is someone who consumed some alcohol but he is NOT IMPAIRED and is capable of operating a vehicle. now:
NOT ALL DRINKERS ARE ALCOHOLICS.
NOT ALL DRINKERS GET DRUNK.
NOT ALL DRUNKS ARE ALCOHOLICs.
NOT ALL DRIVERS WHO DRANK ARE ALCOHOLICS.
NOT ALL DRIVERS WHO DRANK ARE DRUNK.
NOT ALL DRIVERS WHO DRANK ARE IMPAIRED.
SO NOW for fort stewart command to open a bar/night club on base within a walking distance from the soldiers stationed there,this is actually a GREAT IDEA and it does REDUCE drunk driving. and as for you saying that alcohol and military don't mix , you need to remember that soldiers too are adult humans and they have the right to entertainment every now and then.of course there are exceptions "i.e. deployed soldiers" but in general it is perfectly fine to have a bar/club on base.

You must have been drunk when you wrote your comment. So let me see you want a bar on base so that we can have 18 year old soldiers drinking to excess and then walking, stumbling home. Great idea, that will certainly help the Army maintain its history of alcoholics.

And yes, I believe if you have a drink and get behind the wheel you are impaired. After being an MP and 20 years in civilian law enforcement I can tell you first hand I have seen it.

To your point that soldiers deserve entertainment, I would agree. But your idea and my idea of entertainment are totally different. By letting 18 year olds get drunk you are paving the way for them to have trouble the rest of their lifes. Where are the leaders in our Army? By opening up a bar on base for underage soldiers all they are doing is contributing to those same soldiers getting in trouble, domestic abuse, DUI, etc etc.

Rocky's is not the solution, it is the problem!

I guess we also disagree on what the PROBLEM is! you believe
that ALCOHOL itself is a problem or a "disease" that needs to be fought or prohibited sharing the same views with MADD where I believe and so do the majority of people that the problem is the unfortunate occasional MANNER in which alcohol is consumed by VERY FEW of us, particularly HABITUAL DRUNK DRIVERS! you also believe that if you have a "drink" and drive you are automatically "impaired" giving little to NO consideration to physiological,chemical or psychological facts that have to do with human body and alcohol! such facts could not be ignored EVEN by those who "tailored" DUI laws to MADD's satisfaction "at this stage of their fight against alcohol" !sadly this is a TYPICAL law enforcement attitude,to quickly criminalize other citizens for the sake of "looking good" on records forgetting that they TOO are MOTHERS,FATHERS,SONS and DAUGHTERS whose future and their families' is being
DESTROYED for committing absolutely NO CRIME! you're trying to say that 18 years old will basically be "allowed" to drink excessively by opening a bar on base where as a former MP, you know this is NOT TRUE as the military has a STRICT code regarding alcohol ON and OFF base in which age limits and ID checks are enforced.though you and I know that an 18 years old would ALMOST ALWAYS find a way to skip the regulations and get hold of alcohol,the question is,would you rather have him/her do it in a SAFE environment on base among his fellow soldiers and within a WALKING distance from home or let hime DRIVE off base and endanger his life and others? I think it's time for all of us to start finding EFFECTIVE and HONEST solutions to our problems AWAY from FASCIST groups such as MADD and their minions of politicians whose only idea about solving problems is to PROHIBIT,CRIMINALIZE and CAPITALIZE even if it costs us our FREEDOM !

You must work for Budwieser with these opinions. I have seen young soldiers die from alcohol poisoning. Remember the soldier who died in the air conditioning vent in Savannah? Alcohol does not only kill you and others when you are driving, but it can kill when you overdose on it, it can kill you slowly by ruining your body and mind.

No one drinks alcohol because they love the taste and it is good for you. People drink because they want to be released from the world and their problems and in this country the only legal way to do this is with alcohol.

Now people are doing to drink and do drugs no matter what. I just don't think our military should help this along. HMmmmmmm what is the rate of alcoholism in the Army? It is and always has been high. Opening a bar sends the wrong message and you know it. It tells these soldiers go ahead and drink to excess because you won't have to drive home and possibly be killed or kill someone because you are DUI. We just won't talk about the number of soldiers that are probably still drunk when they show up for work in the morning. We won't talk about the number of soldiers who end up in the base hospital for alcohol poisoning. We won't talk about the soldiers who get injured and / or arrested because they are impaired and the fight and get hurt or hurt someone. We won't talk about the spouse who gets her ass kicked because her soldier husband walked home drunk on base and beat her ass.

Add to this all you have done is increase the number of civilians driving back from Stewart drunk. Oh but that is not the base commander's problem if a civilian gets drunk at his base bar and kills someone while driving drunk.

Live in the real world here buddy. Drinking is just a way to hide from your problems, but once you drink you end up sharing your screwed up life with innocent people.

The Army should find another way, but they won't. This is the easy way out. Yep I do believe all this MADD bs, because it is the truth.

following your same "logic", once you eat that greasy hamburger you end up sharing medical bills with INNOCENT people!same might happen if you keep eating those pies and smoking those cigarettes!how about watching extremely stupid daytime tv shows,violent movies and pornography or listening to crazy music? wouldn't you think over a period of time, doing that might "screw" your life and the lives of those around you? should we go around PROHIBITING hamburgers,tv, movies and pies because there's always a "possibility" they might prove"harmful"in one way or another? just because YOU don't like alcohol or have had bad experiences with it,does not give you the right to PROHIBIT others who are able to enjoy it in moderation and had never caused harm to anybody! after all people should be able to make their own choices as long as they're held responsible to society for the outcome and this is the whole idea of a DEMOCRACY and a FREE COUNTRY!
if all we want is to prohibit and criminalize and treat people like minors incapable of making their own responsible choices,then there's already a place on earth for that and it's called SAUDI ARABIA!for every person that makes a poor choice there are hundreds who make a sound one and alcohol is NOT an exception!but,you're trying to make it sound like alcohol is the SOURCE of all "evil" which is plain WRONG!for your info I DON'T work for ANY alcohol company and I'm not one of those DUI lawyers but I'm AN AMERICAN CITIZEN who does enjoy social drinking once in a while and who's also truely CONCERNED for the future of freedom in this country!

Well at least that greasy hamburger won't impair my driving and cause me to crash and kill innocent people.

Go ahead and have a drink. Nothing will change. The topic was whether it is responsible for the Army to open this bar up on base. I believe it is not responsible. There are better ways to handle the number of DUI's that soldiers were getting. Apparently the Army recognizes a problem with soldiers and drinking, but instead of helping them with their problem, they want to take the easy road.

Stay on topic buddy. Your right to get drunk will not be removed by me.

oh so NOW we're back to"topic"!well I thought the topic was whether opening a bar on base is an EFFECTIVE solution to
DRUNK DRIVING in fort stewart or not! and the PLAIN SIMPlE LOGICAL answer is YES.but it was you who DELIBERATELY failed
to see that and went OFF topic ranting about the "evils" of ALCOHOL as a "substance" disconnecting it from RELEVANT facts and from the "topic" ! so help me out here! it does not take a genius to figure that you were not in it STRICTLY for the "topic's sake" but rather to ATTACK alcohol, alcohol drinkers and worse yet the military,simply for having the BALLS to adopt an AGGRESSIVE and PRACTICAL solution to the DRUNK DRIVING problem without giving in to PHONY rhetorics and FALSE ideas promoted through MADD's propaganda! furthermore I choose to see this issue as a part of a BIGGER PICTURE, and that is our GENERAL ATTITUDE towards approaching problems and the immediate,foreseeable and hidden consiquences for such attitude! will we be a country that goes down the road of prohibitionism, persecution and eventually fascism which means we end up in the garbage can of human history along with those who chose that road in the past? or will we STICK to JUSTICE, FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and be more HONEST and CREATIVE about solving our problems? I will ENJOY my drink tonight "it's friday" complemented with good company and you can go ahead and have your greasy burger because that is the BEAUTY of being in AMERICA,something that a lot of you nowadays tend to forget!I will also choose the military's BOLD approach over the PHONY "nannies" of MADD and their WIMPY politicians ANYDAY!

You seem to be drunk on the importance of alcohol in your life. If you really want to impact alcohol deaths and dui's at Fort Stewart then give these soldiers guidence and education at what alcohol can do to the mind and body. Simply providing a bar so most soldiers don't have to drive doesn't do anything to stop the bigger issue of alcoholism.

You don't want to hear that. Go ahead and drive your soldiers lifes off the cliff. Just so long as they don't get a DUI, you will be happy. Sad Sad Sad. You are a good example of leaders not doing right by their troops. Leaders taking the easy road. You could care less about the soldier once you are done with him. You use him up and dump him by the side of the road.

Go ahead and keep taking the easy way out, but I believe our soldiers deserve better from their commanders.

I forgot. Go ahead and have your drink tonight. But know this, if you get behind a wheel of a car I will be out patrolling to keep our streets safe. That means I will be there to hopefully stop you before you hurt yourself, because I figure you think you can handle your alcohol. You don't have to thank me for protecting you from yourself. That's just my job.

you must be on ONE buddy! seriously how DELUSIONAL , EGOTISTICAL and SELF RIGHTEOUS can you be to even dare pretend that your job is to protect ME or anybody else for that matter from "ourselves"? was that in your job describtion when they hired you? the job that I and others pay for with our tax money!who fooled you into believing that you can save people from "themselves" by making their choices for them because you think you know "better"?I doubt people with your mentality are actually capable of making our streets safer for a simple reason,they're normally out there wasting time,effort and tax payers money HUNTING for the WRONG people hoping for some extra points on record and of course making an EASY BUCK for the state! those soldiers you pretend to give a crap about are HUMAN ADULTS who are ENTRUSTED with the defense of our nation and they can make their own WISE choices without someone like you telling them what to eat and drink!they are capable citizens before all and I guarantee you,most of them have more logic and common sense than you and other PROHIBITIONISTs will ever do!the military like any other organization is not perfect,but on this one there's NO DOUBT they got it right and just because it doesn't "fit in" your PERSONAL version of "right" doesn't mean you go off bashing the military and their commands! and don't you dare either say that commanders don't care about their soldiers because you and I know that they HAVE TO!if not at a personal level,at a PROFESSIONAL one and it's simply the way the military operates,private Joe screws up and it's corporal Jame's fault,sergeant Johnson's fault,captain Jack's fault and all the way up to the commander!so to even imply that military commanders don't have their soldiers' best interest in mind when making decisions like these, you're just being BLINDLY BIASED and RIDICULOUS!if you and others like you just "have it in" for alcohol and anybody who drinks it because YOU think it's "wrong",just come out clean and don't hide behind the MASK of "caring",otherwise please keep the "nanny" culture away from our military!

I don't have it in for alcohol. Only those people who abuse it and those people who help others abuse it. I would bet you have never seen the results of a DUI fatality. Christmas Eve 15 years ago I got to respond to the scene of a drunk soldier who crashed head on and killed 3 little girls and their mother. The drunk soldier had been drinking on base and was driving home when he drove at 100 mph on the wrong side of the interstate.

The only people who survived were the soldier who walked away and the father of the little girls who now has brain injury.

That soldier thought he could handle his alcohol also. Go figure.

The person who said they believe what MADD says needs to look into how the statistics on alcohol related fatalities are calculated. If a blood test showed a person had a bal of .01 and this person was killed by a speeding driver while walking across the street, that's an alcohol related fatality which does not relate to the dui laws since they are .08. When the breathalyzer was first invented, our federal highway agency together with the AMA did exhaustive studies to determine what bal was dangerous, from statistics at that time and from the statistics today on acual bal's that cause a fatality, the bal is usually around .20 but to be safe, the limit was set at .15 and then as prohibition policies receeded in people's minds it was decreased to .10 in the 1960's. The problem with lowering the rate to .08 is the unreliability of the breathalyzer machine, it is so unreliable the scientific community won't even certify it. The breathalyzer does not test for alcohol, it tests for ethanol, like paint thinner or lighter fluid spilled on your arm or diabetes or mouth alcohol, a blood test is reliable but since the police aren't authorized to use them and emergency rooms are too crowded, the breathalyzer is deemed "close enough". At the time Candy Lightner started MADD, the dui laws were too lenient but today they have swung so far to the opposite as to amount to a witchunt, people used to believe throwing a woman in the water would determine if she was a witch because they never really thought about whether that test was a reliable indicator of being a dangerous witch, going on a witchunt means suspending rational thought. Madd makes 47 million dollars a year. Most people do not realize that the person who started MADD, Candy Lightner, had two children hit by drunk drivwers,a son who spent 8 months recovering and then a few years later, a daughter was killed. But these two drivers weren't at the level of .08, they were dead drunk. Ms. Lightner wanted a change in the law, to get seriously drunk drivers who would injure others off the road and she accomplished her goal. But then Madd started getting lots of money and became a kind of quasi-governmental organization and began misrepresenting statistics, distorting facts and urning away from the issue of safety to the issue of prohibition. Candy Lightner did her best to stop her organization from turning into a witch hut. But she couldn't do it and had to resign, Madd doesn't even claim her as their founder, their website says "some woman" started Madd, I feel so sorry for Ms. Lightner. Madd has lobbied for laws that seriously impair the enforcement of actual drunk drivers, the police and courts are too busy prosecuting people who are social drinkers while the real problem drinkers who know how to evade laws don't get caught until they hurt someone. The dui laws have also encouraged drug use among youth, there are statistics that show as the alcohol laws became so strict, the use of drugs by the population just getting their driver's licenses increased by 50%. Under the influence of drugs is not an easy conviction like a dui for alcohol, you can't prove how long drugs were in the body with a urine test, you have to use evidence of actual impairment. Its obvious why almost all dui convictions are alcohol and not drug related, alcohol dui is much easier to prove but futhermore, because of the breathalyzer, the jury gets an instruction that the state has no burden to prove guilt, the defendant has to prove innocence, I'll bet most people don't even know that is happening, you are guilty until proved innocent, actually, the state doesn't have to put on a shred of evidence other than the breathalyzer test or refusal. The Supreme Court has found the dui laws are some kind of "exception to the constitution" and abrogated 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights, they no longer apply to dui cases, there's not even a right to a jury trial. This dui witchunt is not targeted at seriously impaired drivers either, its targeted at social drinkers, speeding kills far more people than even seriously drunk drivers kill. Most traffic fatalities caused by alcohol do not occur until a bal of .20. The reason MADD's "alcohol related fatalites" statistics are so high is because they use all persons involved in the accident, whether there were 20 or 1, whether the person was a driver, passenger or pedestrian, then use a bal of .01 as the measure that alcohol was involved, then ignore who caused the accident or why, so obviously, they do not really care about safety, they care about numbers which get more taxpayer dollars for Madd, most of the money donated to madd is used to pay really high salaries to executives and to lobby for more money. I'll bet that's something that's not generally known either. Here's my solution. Take all this money that is going into police, prosecution, jails, guards and related industries and build public transportation systems. That way a normal police force could concentrate on the real drunk drivers and other serious crimes. With public transportation systems in place, it won't really matter whether the dui laws are unconstitutional because then people can avoid being subjected to them, they can take public transportation. But if they want to drive instead, well, that's their choice. Decent Public transport would solve all kinds of problems, I mean, we could just use the billions of tax dollars the government is giving to all these corporations (GM American Express)and to prosecutors and courts and breathalyzer companies and jails and probation departments (private corporations) and simply use that money to build transporation systems which would provide jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil and our aging population could remain independent for longer periods of time. Stock market tip: Invest in CCA, corrections corporation of America, they supply the prisons and jails and run the probation and write laws and do PR about crime as against the government's own statistics and they have enormous profits which continue to increase. CCA employs more people than Walmart, and the big three auto companfuturies combined.

thank you very much! it is indeed embarrassing that a country of the UNITED STATES's caliber have virtually NO public transportation! I live in a CITY,not a major one but not a small one either,and the nearest bus stop to my house is about 45 minutes walk!do you believe this?
you also have to switch buses for just an average destination which means, a trip that would normally take about 15 minutes takes about 2 hours on the bus!
additionally,buses don't run 24 hours! now tell me, how dare those IDIOTS and SCAMMERS of law makers call driving "a privilege" in such a VAST country with such a BAD JOKE of a public transportation?
and if those BULLIES in MADD are truely concerned about the "drunk driving" issue, how much did they spend or raise to improve public transportation? answer is easy,0 dollars!

This is a reply to Josef who wrote MADD does not raise money for public transportation so obviously safety is not their big concern. That's a really good point. I assume you came from some other country where the political process actually addresses real issues, here in America, the political process is dominated by people on a bandwagon wanting tax dollars, the states and federal government are getting together with the wealthy corporate interest groups (termed "special interests")to use the American legal system for personal profit rather than for legitimate state interests, like safety and public transportation. Thirty years ago small corportions took over or "raided" each other and became big corporations who raided each other and now they are raiding the entire country which you are seeing in the lack of public transportation, 30 years ago you could take a bus anywhere.

I read the comments and sounds like some of you are letting fear be your guide. FACE THE FACTS. The fact is "It is not against the law to drink!"
Im here to say that people who want to drink will find a way to drink, on base or off. If a person is going to drive while under the influence they are making a very bad choice. I would hope that they would drink at home or have a designated driver if they plan to go out and drink. Soldiers who live in barracks want to get out to socialize, sorry to say that society and night life is centered around alcohol. That is not going to change any time soon.
Most small towns have no public transportation that means driving is a necessity to go out. Most bases that I have been stationed at have a night club serving alcohol, dj, dancing, etc. I've seen them, I've been to them. You can buy alcohol on base. Why is it better to drink off base and make a poor decision to drive? It sure is a good idea to have the base club serve alcohol. They should also have a military bus to provide transportation for them. I've seen the military provide bus transportation going off base and a rounte back to the base at some bases.
Find a solutions that will work, don't be blind and say drinking should be prohibited that's just not going to happen.

The comments on here make me angry. Why should adult soldiers not have a bar on camp. No-one is suggesting that under age soldiers should be served there.

Having said that, if an individual is old enough to be sent to die in Iraq, he or she should be old enough to have a beer when he or she gets back to the real world!

As a leader of soldiers, I would far rather have a problem on camp where I can deal with it than have drunk soldiers driving back to camp or causing trouble in the community.

I guess there is a reason the LEO who is so against having a club on camp isn't an Officer - it is called reasonable judgement. Frankly him being in a position of authority with such biggoted views scares me.