here is a scenario to detail the absurdity of your question:
alcoholic. drinking most days, after work and days off. if they needed more beer or anything else, they walked to a store a block away. one day they get in a wreck driving to work and known to be an alcoholic.
what proof evidence shows they were inebriated/under the influence at the time of the accident? because that is my question here that you, and no one else, wants to answer but instead look at previous conduct to apply to the present without anything to substantiate it other than feelings.
come on you all, do better. maybe she was drunk, maybe she wasn't. i don't know which is why i asked. as it stands, there is nothing to lead me to the conclusion she was under the influence, based on the op article.
Have you ever met an actual alcoholic?
a non sequitur question does not answer my question but to answer yours: yes, many. would you care to answer mine now?
if you had actually known any real alcoholics,
would you still be asking stupid questions ?
oh more questions without answering mine nice so no legitimate reason to believe such got it thanks for making that clear
you seem suspiciously defensive of female alcoholics
are you a simp, bro?
here is a scenario to detail the absurdity of your question:
alcoholic. drinking most days, after work and days off. if they needed more beer or anything else, they walked to a store a block away. one day they get in a wreck driving to work and known to be an alcoholic.
what
proofevidence shows they were inebriated/under the influence at the time of the accident? because that is my question here that you, and no one else, wants to answer but instead look at previous conduct to apply to the present without anything to substantiate it other than feelings.come on you all, do better. maybe she was drunk, maybe she wasn't. i don't know which is why i asked. as it stands, there is nothing to lead me to the conclusion she was under the influence, based on the op article.