Let's see them station squad cars outside the entrance of the country club and make the enforcement applicable to everyone, not just those on Main street!

If someone commits an alcohol related crime, they should not be allowed to purchase alcohol. EVERYTIME you go to purchase alcohol, the cashier should swipe your license. this is connected to a database that tells them whether or not you are ALLOWED to purchase alcohol. If not, no booze. Make it a felony to purchase alcohol for someone who is not allowed. Why take away someone's drivers license. Now they can't work, take care of their family, etc. i.e. they have more LIFE problems. Life problems cause drinking problems. As soon as our society takes a zero tolerance stance on alcohol abuse, the problem will decrease. Until then, we'll continue to let repeat offenders off easy, so they can continue to cause problems for themselves and others. BTW, I drink.

It never fails to amaze me how negative and cynical so many of these posts are. The fact is, Kim Hixson is helping to take a big step forward and reduce instances of drunken driving. Is the bill perfect and comprehensive? Probably not. Are there other issues regarding driving that should be addressed? Sure. But this is a step in the right direction, and I applaud Rep. Hixson for making roads safer.

Anyways, Rep. Hixson is giving you an opportunity to DIRECTLY ADDRESS him on this issue. I can almost guarantee that none of the posters complaining about what he is doing will show up at his listening session to ask questions or express concerns.

MOC--yes, you are absolutely right--the topic of the article is the increase in penalties for DUI convictions. Doesn't it make perfect sense before making a decision like this to put it into perspective with how we treat and what we are doing to address other reckless driving activities? Maybe we would realize that we need to focus a little bit less on crucifying those who stop for 2 or 3 beers after work and a little bit more on situations like the attached. http://www.western-star.com/news/crime/d...
I am completely happy with taking the risk of riding my bike--what I am not happy with is the fact that the woman in this article will most likely get off with a slap on the wrist after running down this motorcyclist. I don't think there should be any "toughening up" of the DUI laws until the other reckless driving activity is even remotely taken seriously......

ummmm wow. i cant believe im about to type this but....well said mr newbie;)

So let me see, if a drunk driver hasn't killed or injured anyone his life should not be destroyed because he won the gamble that he took for himself and any unfortunate soul who may have crossed his path until he was stopped by the police. Is it OK to destroy the lives of those who loose that same gamble? The fact is that we will never be able to make these people give up what they view as their right and convenience to drive drunk by reason alone. As 916WI shows, they are beyond reason. Not only does he claim that drunk drivers are usually harmless but that since cell phone users are dangerous too, drunk drivers deserve a pass as well since they usually don't hurt anyone. Protecting his interest in drinking and driving is obviously paramount to him. Sure we all understand that he doesn't intend to hurt anyone, but his implied assurance that he and his kind probably never will is hollow in light of the death rates credited to drunk drivers. The only way to get these recalcitrant drivers to stop callously risking innocent lives is to make the penalty so onerous that they will stop just to avoid the penalty since they won't listen to reason. Of course the local D.A. has to have the will to press such charges without plea bargaining away the deterrent value of such laws. Sadly, here in Rock County, our D.A. prefers deals to justice.

916WI: I never dismissed it as an activity that wasn't dangerous. I simply said it was totally different than drinking and driving and it is, no doubt about it. I never said talking and driving wasn't dangerous. The article was about stiffer drunk driving penalties not about cell usage and it's penalties. Stay on topic of the article. Weren't you the one saying that there are risks in life and we need to live with those risks? Well, riding a motorcycle is a big risk. You are harder to see to anyone, be it sober, drunk, texting, talking etc.... I guess you should live with that risk.

I sincerely doubt that it will change the minds of any of the alcoholics posting here, BUT I'm willing to say that, after a reasonable period of time for education, publication, etc.--we should go ahead & adopt similar severe sentencing for cell phone use/texting while driving. Now, can we get back to the article?

I'm sorry MOC but you are the one being ridiculous! This was a discussion about increasing the penalties on a situation involving dangerous drivers on the road. It only makes sense that you create a frame of reference and compare it to what is being done to curb other dangerous driving problems. From personal experience, I have been run off the road while riding my motorcycle twice by people on their cell phones--never had any issue with someone falling asleep or having head spins trying to bump me into the ditch. So don't tell me that this isn't a problem that deserves attention. These people have no regard for the safety of others and are just as much of a danger as those driving drunk. Because a majority of people use them does that make it alright to drive impaired? Why shouldn't the fine be the same? Impaired driving is impaired driving--that is what we are punishing with these fines/sentences --correct? Shame on you MOC for dismissing the importance of addressing a problem which is costing lives w/ little or no consequence!

MOC & thekid--Great posts & totally ON TOPIC - unlike so many!

Drinking and driving is a totally different type of impairment. The two should not and can not be compared side by side, they are apples and oranges. While talking you still have all your faculties about you. You aren't falling asleep or having head spins etc... To compare the two is a ridiculous idea. It almost sounds like you're the drunk driver trying to defend your actions by focusing on something else that is negative. Shame on you, that is not the topic of discussion.

cell phones and drunk driving arent really comparable. a MAJORITY of people have cell phones but you dont see stats that say someone is killed or injured every 88 seconds. a large MINORITY drive drunk and you DO have someone injured or killed every 88 seconds in the state of wi. similar in that they both impair the driver and there should be laws regarding driving/talking but you cant have them close to the same penalty. i like matt_Gaboda's idea.

I predict more of a discussion is happening on this site then will occur at U-Rock on Monday.

Separate issue, but it also needs to be addressed.

Would you also propose $5000 fines for any driver seen using a cell phone while driving at the same time that you propose a $5000 fine for first offense DUI?

I've sat down and spoke with Rep. Hixson about this issue. In a state where the Senate Majority leader is a convicted drunk driver, and we have a three time OWI Representative still serving, I give Rep. Hixson credit for trying! That being said, the measures he and Sen. Robson are supporting are not enough. Here is what I would present if I was the 43rd Assembly District Representative.

1. 1st time OWI- $5000 fine, 7 days in jail.

2. 2nd time OWI- Felony, $10,000 fine, 30 days in jail.

3. 3rd time OWI- Let's just say you won't have a 4th OWI.

4. Ignition interlocks sound great, but, if there is a will, there is a way. This concept seems way too easy to circumvent. This law is a great wishful thinking measure, but will be manipulated with ease.

5. As much as I would love to have ones 1st time OWI to be a felony and locked away for life, I understand as humans we err. I am not close to being perfect, and am optimistic with my approach if someone was unwise enough to drive impaired and not hurt anyone, the monetary and jail punishments would deter most from repeating. 2nd time, give me a break. 3rd time, you haven't learned anything, why should we wait until it's someone we love.

6. If the penalty for 1st degree murder was a $1000 fine and 10 hours of community service, I would buy body armor. There is NOT ONE reason why anyone should be allowed to have more than three OWI's.

If anyone has any comments on my alternatives, please email me at matt.gaboda@yahoo.com

loveisgood: i dont know much about it. i guess its an herb that some people are trying to get criminalized. you can order it on the net. i smoked it a few years ago and it was sorta like a whippet, only instead of a 30 second 'high' it was about 2 minutes...and ive NEVER laughed so hard in my life. its hard to explain what it did. it felt sort of like i was being rolled over by a wrestling mat, even starting at my feet and moving to the top. after about 2 minutes it was COMPLETELY gone. theres worse(legal) drugs you could put in your body;)

so... if the drunk gets hit by the soccar mom on the cell phone or the old guy that just will not (or be forced not)to stop driving, and it's not there fault at all ,they should all go to prision? seems a lot of double standards here. stupid is stupid-make it all the same

every 88 minutes, someone in Wisconsin is killed or injured in an alcohol-related crash
*
Did you read this!?!? How can you say this is not serious problem? I think the proposed changes are way too little to make a difference. I'm all for 2nd offense felony. Fourth or Fifth? That is ridiculous! Everyone deserves a second chance, but after that you lose. I also would support a treatment program as opposed to jail time. They should have to attend and pay for it themselves. Why should taxpayers spend the big bucks that jail costs when that isn't going to fix the problem. After 2nd offense, you can do outpatient treatment and keep your day job, 3rd offense is in-patient treatment. After that, start sending them to jail.

916WI, neither you nor anyone else have the right to recklessly and unreasonably increase people's risks. It's one thing to talk about unavoidable risks and another to consciously take unacceptable risks with other people's lives. That applies to anyone who doesn't drive safely, whether because of alcohol or anything else. Guess you're saying we should just forget drunk driving laws altogether and accept that as a reasonable "risk." I think most people would disagree. And sorry, but the cost to families who lose people is dramatic. Read the posts on the memorial site that I posted, then explain how those avoidable tragedies are just part of life. As one of the memorial posters said in her poem:

And I still remember when I got the call
And one choice could have changed it all
Maybe if one person decided not to drink and drive
Maybe, just maybe, my daddy would still be alive

This is not about being PC. It's about not being irresponsible and stupid and breaking the law.

jvillerdr.....All of the dramatic comparisons aside--life is full of risks. Get used to it or lock yourself in your house and throw away the key! Someone who has had a couple of beers poses the same amount of risk as a 16 year old on a cell phone, a truck driver going on 3 hours of sleep, a soccer mom distracted by the 4 kids she has in the back of her minivan. I know it's PC to blame the "evil beer drinker" but try to keep things in perspective.........

No brwe......Stupidity would best be defined as taking an honest, hard working taxpayer away from their home/family/job and throwing them in jail for 20 years all because he/she stopped after work for a couple of beers and blew a .09 after being pulled over on their way home.......Seriously!!!! Answer the question--who's going to pony up the millions it will take to incarcerate these people as well as replace the lost tax revenue when they're forced out of their jobs?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

http://www.guanacoweb.com/

http://67.207.175.3/?p=57

beeferer, please stop posting that urban legend about the death penalty for drunk driving. I have shown that it is false several times. Those countries long ago removed the death penalty for most offenses. I am not clear why you continue to repost false information.

http://www.pinkbike.com/forum/listcommen...

http://www.blacksupremacysounds.com/foru...

http://www.lifamilies.com/chat/topic-354...

http://www.extremebartending.com/drinkin...

http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~sadd/laws.htm...

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-drivin...

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/d... also -driving-the-laws-in/ also http://webpages.charter.net/ricknet/duil...

Concerned citizen: Are you serious????? Do you live in a house without windows or media of any sort? People getting killed by a drunk or a drunk killing themselves happens locally all the time. You may find this acceptable until it is your loved one who dies at the hands of someone that just had, as people put it so lightly, one to many! Your argument is weak at best.

It's disturbing that so many people are defending drunk drivers as mostly harmless. People get killed by drunk drivers precisely because so many others get behind the wheel and play Russian roulette with all our lives. Drunk driving puts people's lives at risk. It's just playing the odds whether the risk actually results in harm. But it's no more defensible than shooting into a populated area -- it is reckless disregard for others' safety and well being. There has already been national press attention to our state's rating as one of the weakest on drunk driving. I agree with those on this board who are calling for some real deterrence.

What direction is the state going to go for revenue after all of us quit smoking and drinking?

brwe, you contend there is a problem, but in reality, there is none. There are isolated rare incidences of drunk driving causing injury, but in fact, the vast majority of DUI's are cited as part of a routine traffic stop where there has been no accident or injury. Rapists, armed robbers, and arsonists hurt people and property. By and large "drunk drivers," do not.

Rather than debate the issue at hand, some of you would prefer to go off on "rabbit trails". For the record, I say the rules/laws on elderly drivers should have been stiffened decades ago. It's asinine to renew the license of an 80-year old for another 8 years, without retesting. Change that, & we can pretty much eliminate their accidents. Not likely to happen, though, because politicians fear elderly voters even more than they do the Tavern League! The analogy doesn't work because there's no way to test for your likelihood of drunk driving!To anyone who's actually interested, I support greatly increased sentences for rapists, armed robbers, & arsonists as well. To pretend we can't start fixing problems in one area before tackling a different crime is just stupidity!

He's holding a "listening" session to "explain" why???
Who would want to go listen to him explain why he's simply signed his name on to a bunch of bills that other legislators have crafted up...except the one that seems to stick it in Edgerton's eye for being the location of that New York Times story.
This is all just a dog-and-pony show before Assembly Democrats pass some drunk driving bills in a few weeks. That's all well and good I suppose, but how about doing something that you supposed ran for office on? Like reforming how we pay for schools or jump-starting the economy.

Off topic ... Kid .. What do you know about Salvia ?

Beeferer--If you blatantly lie with regards to the laws that are on the books in those countries--both of which are COMPLETELY false--no one in either of those countries are getting shot to death because they had a few shots of vodka.......I would tend to think that you are also lying when it comes to losing 4 friends and having 3 others maimed.....If you can't get the obvious facts right, you have no credibility.........

beeferer, now who's calling the kettle black? You also post the same thing in every article, and in every article, someone points out that your information on the foreign DUI Death Squads is nothing but pure fabrication. I truly am sorry to hear about your friends, but, I have to ask where the people you associate with spend their time, so as to be so affected by such a isolated and infrequent problem?

In some countries, drinking and driving is punishable by death. A first time offense in El Salvador leads to execution by firing squad, while a second offense in Bulgaria also leads to execution. This is exactly what this country needs! I have had 4 friends killed by drunk drivers. I have had 3 friends maimed for life by drunk drivers.

beeferer, I wouldn't last long as a politician. But okay, you caught me, I did use a different phrase to express the same concept. Sorry. The wording is different, but the sentiment is the same. We paid for the roads, and the government has no cause to deprive of us the use of a resource we paid for.

Concerned citizen--If you are a politician, please PM me your name. I would vote for you in a split second given the opportunity!!!

+1 concerned citizen--I agree with you 100%. Why don't we string up the elderly or the cell phone users? I have had MANY more close calls with drivers than fell into these two groups than I have ever had with a "drunk" driver.......How about it brwe--would you support locking Grandpa up for the remainder of his life the next time he causes an accident because his reaction time is seriously compromised because of his age???? After all he is driving impaired.......

ConcernedCitizen_aka_Disgusted- You said: "Driving is not a privilege, it is a right." But in a previous forum you said: "Driving may be a privilege, but it is a privilege we all pay for through taxes and user fees." Are you, by chance, a politician?

A 20 year sentence? Too funny brwe!!!!! Let's lock someone up who happened to have one or two more than they should have on the way home from work on a Friday night--but hurt absolutely no one in the process--with a jail sentence longer than rapists, armed robbers and arsonists would receive......It would costs millions of taxpayer dollars--not to mention the loss of millions in tax revenue when these "horrible menaces to society" are pulled away from their families and jobs. We'll just send you and the rest of your "holy rollers" the bill for that ingenious idea!!!!!:)

brwe, you want to destroy people's lives as punishment for blowing a 0.081, and having done NOTHING to hurt anyone? What is wrong with you?? Maybe we should execute people for not shoveling their sidewalk, or give life sentences for those who run stops signs. It amazes me how so many people buy into these lies, when the central issue of drunk driving is revenue collection, nothing more, nothing less. Except for statistically insignificant extreme circumstances, drunk driving is a non-issue that seldom results in a fender bender, let alone an injury or death.

There are great & SIMPLE solutions--we just don't have the stomach for them! The answer is to quit worrying about the negative impact on DRUNK DRIVERS, & enact measures draconian enough to actually get their attention! If that takes lifetime license revocation & 20 year sentences without parole, SO BE IT!!

The police have too much power, and the drunk driving laws are too strict as it is. Killing people, hurting people, and damaging property with your car are all currently illegal, and should be dealt with swiftly. It should make no difference if one is drunk, tired, angry, sad, hyper or just a crappy driver. There is no reason to have additional punitive action for a state of mind that does not intrinsically cause harm. Driving is not a privilege, it is a right. We pay user fees to use the roads, and once we have proven that we have a sufficient knowledge base to operate a vehicle, the state has no right to prevent us from utilizing those roads.

sweetness502 You have the most rational and intelligent comment on this blog.

I would like to see mandatory jail time with the 1st offense, and a felony with the 2nd and beyond. Taking away a license for a time period obviously doesn't work because folks will just drive without it. It would be nice to see auto manufacturers make interlock devices standard on all autos. It sounds like it may be an inconvenience, but something has to be done to effectively prevent drunk driving.

Yes it is a good idea to put devices in cars to blow in to start. However what is to prevent that person selling the car or buying another car and go out binge drinking and doing it all over again. It will cost a lot of money to monitor the drinker who wants to drive illegally. Maybe the manufacture should put the devise on every car and pass the cost to you who is not a drinker but that way the drinkers could not get around the devise. I do not drink and I see the problem the society has with drunk drivers. I wish there was a great solution to this problem.

In Europe, children learn to drink in moderation with their parents. In the US, we send kids to college where they learn to drink in excess. Second, true alcholism is a disease, which we need to provide adequate and understanding healthcare to cure. It is tragic on both sides of the table.

Talk, talk, legislate, legislate.
==============
More hot air from the state capitol.
==============
Our present government and justice system is unwilling to stand up and make any real change toward reducing the deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers.
==============
If our model citizens in the capitol did take action, they may have to incarcerate one of their own, and that wouldn't stand in the “Old Boys Club” now would it?
==============
Having a drivers license, and operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. I believe that was stated right up front in the Wisconsin Drivers Education Manual when I took my classes many moons ago.
==============
It's time to start revoking that privilege from those that are not responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle.
==============
Suspend some licenses, impound some vehicles, lock them up...........quit talking about it, and DO SOMETHING !
==============
Do you lawmakers NEED to lose a loved one to a drunk who stopped for “a few” on the way home, before you will DO SOMETHING?
==============
Rest in Peace Alan and Bailey Calvillo

Will someone explain to me why we shouldn't make the SECOND offense a felony & start confiscating vehicles at the same point?

Not trying to make excuses but the state doesnt want to STOP drunk driving, they would lose way too much money!!!!! All they will ever do is rant and rave so you think they are doing something, but all they will really do is raise beer taxes and increase fines. Kim Hixion is wasting our time

I know that not all drunk drivers come from bars but isnt there something that can be done that if a bartender serves someone too much, they are somewhat responsible? I think I have heard something like this before but not sure its a law. I have seen people wasted, and get served. Too many people are tryin to make the dollar to care about others.

Hey how about making it a federal case with the 2nd drunk driving arrest not conviction? Too many people get off. Too many are allowed to repeat, repeat, repeat.

his quote implies that dd's think at all:)