Sure, lets ban it. Fortunes can be made in organized crime. Many empires still exist today that were begun from bootlegging alcohol in the 20's under prohibition. The whole Kennedy clan is one of the more famous examples. After Joseph Kennedy made a fortune with Chicago mob boss Frank Costello bootlegging alcohol from Canada, Joseph's fortunes would go on to produce a President, Senators, and countless political royalty.
Government intervention is a great thing for the black market. People can make fortunes beyond imagination, and ascend to unbelievable power!

Sobriety checkpoints? I thought I lived in America not 1940 Germany. Show me your papers citizen!

JWs - Alcohol prohibition didn't work in the 20th century, and it won't work now. You think things are bad now? Try making it illegal! If you don't know the history, you need only look at the current situation with illegal drugs. Since they are illegal, there is a black market where ridiculous amounts of money are being made. At the same time, we lose some of our rights in the name of the "war on drugs", and law enforcement, the courts and the prisons are forced to spend inordinate amounts of resources on that, thereby neglecting everything else. BTW, the "war on drugs" will never be won, and will never end. Government gets more power, politicians get to posture, and of course the dealers and distributors get rich. If you don't understand why this "war" will never be won, study Econ 101 (supply and demand).

I hope you "harder laws save lives" people figure it out and support REAL solutions.

The only true way to stop this is to close the bars and restart prohibition. The ugly truth of the matter is the goverment and court system makes TO MUCH MONEY from these people.
With the laws so black and white nobody is treated fairly and people that have real drinking problems are overlooked.
Public transportation works great if it runs 24 hours a day but that is only in big cities.
Think long and hard about all the money involved in an OWI and in alcohol sales. You stop alcohol sales and you might stop OWI all together.
Public transportation sounds like a good investment.People need options to get home safe. free ride programs or bus rides if you have been drinking are also needed to stop people from driving.
These laws that have been debated dont help you or me,They just create more issues with over crowded jails and people with felonies that cant get jobs. If you cant work you become more of an social burden and I'm sure we dont want to pay for that problem either.

That's actually a very intriguing counter intuitive idea (Super dave's). Many of the ideas thrown out there are pure symbolism, that in reality won't accomplish one thing to curve the problem. Like I posted about the vehicle lock out device. I mean; what a joke. Like anyone with a 3rd grade education won't be able to find away around that. I really think a felony conviction on a 3rd or 4th offense would really deter your average drunk. Not many would be willing to drive after having just one beer if they know their next conviction for being pulled over would result in years of jail time.

I'm going to concur with SuperDave also. When I got mine, I only blew a .09, which is only .01 over the legal limit. I had to get the same penalties as someone who could have been completely annihilated and blown a .026. I was very capable of driving although technically they can say you are impaired. Again, I think SuperDave's comment is more realistic.

Super Dave I agree with you but you may get slammed.

I posted this under another article, but this seems to be the right place for it, so I am copying it over to here....
The idea of lowering the limit to 0.02% is absurd, even for second offenses. Clearly, someone with a BAC of 0.02% is NOT DRUNK. Once again, this effort would attempt to ensnare ordinary people by redefining what constitutes "drunk driving", instead of focusing on the hard core repeat offenders.
My preference would be exactly the opposite. Increase the limit for everyone to 0.16, with perhaps a lesser charge (such as "impaired driving") if BAC is 0.08 to 0.16. Focus on the real problem, which is the hard core alcoholic repeat offenders. And before you comment that people shouldn't drink and drive, PERIOD... I agree! But there should be a differentiation made between those that have a relatively low BAC, and those who are totally blotto.

Car Owners Responsibility Act, C.O.R.A. Get caught driving drunk in Janesville, the vehicle is impounded and it will cost you $700.00 to get it back, plus all the current penalties we have now for county and state. This works in Illinois and believe me, you don't want to be caught in Illinois. (the city gets the cash)

They should make it a felony after your forth offense. But, every case should be looked at individually. If someone has a offense 10 years apart should be looked at differently than someone with offenses closer together. They need to look at the individuals record and see what the situations were at the time.

I don't know the statistics but it seems when you read the police reports usually the person does not have a valid license or operating on revoked etc. My point is, not having a license does not stop the drunk from getting behind the wheel.

What about the studies that have come out that using the cell phone is as bad if not worse than driving drunk. I'm not defending OWI, but I bet you won't be able to pry those phones out of everyone's hands easily. I actually have had many near misses of being side-swipped or someone running stop signs and they have all been on the phone. Usually the person stares at you beligerently like 'what! I can use my cell!' I travel everyday between Janesville and Milton on Hwy 26. Depending on the time of day, you have to try to avoid the drunks, the cell abusers and then the semi-trailers going at warp speed. Actually, most people abuse the speed limit and it looks like a drag race. So between all of the nuts, it's 4 mi of pure luck to get home. How many people have to die before it gets into thick heads. You know I have never heard one drunk person ever say, 'You know, I knew I was too drunk to drive but I did it anyway.' They don't know they are drunk. Because they are drunk. Duh.

First time you get caught, they should take your license away, like in Germany.

All of these punishments are great ideas, but they only work if a driver is actually caught. The bars are full every night of the week with drunk drivers who make it home. If they made it home last night, they figure they'll make it home tonight. Sometimes this thought pattern lasts a couple of weeks, sometimes it works for twenty years.
*
And just because you say it's not okay doesn't mean there aren't thousands of your family, friends, neighbors and co-workers that tell eachother it is. And soon they or their children may convince yours that they are right. Don't belive it won't happen just because they are in DARE or SADD or good kids.
*
It's the culture of our state and it's not always an illness or addiction. It's a pastime that alleviates boredom for the unindustrious or dulls depression for the unemployed or defines friendships for the lonely.
*
I don't know how to change it, but many if not most repeat drunk drivers don't get caught. Maybe we should just hang up copies of the story about the anguish Wendy and her family are going through in the bar bathrooms.

and have Police at bar time closing we have to get you drunks off the road, yup i like that .

0 tolerance sounds good to me.

.02 are you kidding me? Might as well make it zero tolerance!

you get one chance to straighten out, it can happen once, but twice...that's unacceptable! make it a felony the 2nd time! The first one should cost major money and time too!

i feel first offense drunken driving give people a hugh fine. then if they get caught again, throw them in jail as long as you would as if they killed someone with their car. make the consequences of your actions tougher. that will make people think twice before doing something stupid.

Why not make bigger better bus routes that make it convenient to take? Wouldn't that offer more jobs an lower drunk driving rates? I also fully agree with ignition interlocks for repeat offenders. As it seems to be a fairly fail safe way of stopping this crime. Id agree with making a 3rd DUI offense a felony if it wasn't spaced out throughout a life time. An if we lower the BAC to .02 then well have designated drivers that had literally 1 beer getting tickets left an right, or the people who really do take drunk driving serious an wait it out to drive will be busted. If someone actually passes sobriety checkpoints we'll shut them down, those are a ridiculous waste of power abuse for a serious situation.

But whatever decisions we make they better offer more solutions than to just this problem. Upping the cost of tickets will further our poverty, AND there are plenty of jobs to be made out of this. Lets start looking at other ways of making people pay for their wrongs without bringing in a (empty) wallet into the equation.

I agree with all but the legalization of sobriety checkpoints. I was under the impression that sting operations were illegal, and that's exactly what it would be. Save the check points for the holidays and spring break.

kiowamohican
If you made it jail time for the 1st offense many public officials would be in jail! That would include the attorney general of this state who we had not so long ago!
**********************************************
kiowamohican you are forgetting the attorney general is above the law.

If you made it jail time for the 1st offense many public officials would be in jail! That would include the attorney general of this state who we had not so long ago!

"Third offense a felony"??? third offense in how many years, and from what state?? what country??.. Get right the first time.. Mandatory Jail time 1st time, .. lower the BAC to .02 the second time... and lose driver privileges for ever the 3rd time along with the felony.. I still believe in the lock-out devises, whether it is a blow or Bracelet.. it will ( I hope) deter the habitual offender, but if some has "offended" the law 3 times in (say) 35 yrs or even 20 yrs ..is it fair to Crucify him/her for something that happen that long ago??? I don't think so.. The law will need to be clarified to adapt to these instances.. As I See it ...Our law makers in Madison will need to look (HARD) in to a mirror before we see this come to light

I have been in the sobriety checkpoints and they inconvenience too many people to pull out the 1 or 2 that they got. It is totally an infringement of our rights to detain us for that long.

What a loaded survey! How about do nothing, certainly nothing that impedes commerce and interferes with law-abiding citizens right to move around freely.

the problem with drunk drivers is that they dont think. they are drunk. thinking about doing the right thing really isnt on their minds. the whole world revolves around them in their own mind when they drink. a drunk could run over a small child and turn the story around to make it all about him or herself and what just happened to him or herself. why? because they are selfish. responsible drinkers dont act like that. they care about other people, even when they drink. responsible drinkers know not to get behind the wheel. people that dont give a crap about anyone but themselves (which are ususally the ones without a lick of sense)do whatever they want, because they think they deserve to do whatever they want.....when they want. we all know that every family has a person like this they have to deal with. it could be drugs or alcohol, young or old, male or female. families need to learn how to deal with destructive people within their own family. why should the state be responsible for keeping our own family members in check? why should taxpayers pay for idiots from every corner of the state? every family should grow a backbone and punish their own family members and hold them accountable for their actions before they become so out of control that another family loses a loved one to careless and selfish acts of a drunk or impaired person. i would like to know how many families really take charge of their members. by the looks of the news articles today........not many.

I find some of these responses rather amusing. Likely, 9+ out of every 10 people that have responded to this survey have never had an OWI before. Everyone's situation is different, meaning some people actually care what the penalties are for getting multiple OWI's. A lot of repeat offenders have nothing to lose. They will keep getting them no matter what the consequence. Sitting in jail or prison is probably no worse than sitting with their friends and family at home, if not one in the same. However, some people who have a life, kids, jobs, and worth, simply make a mistake, sometimes more than once, and the proper treatment or threat of punishment is that boost they need to stop making that mistake.
From my own experience, I've screwed up and I've realized it. I know for darn sure I don't want to be a felon after a 3rd one. How could I take care of my little girl? Working would be virtually impossible without a license assuming anyone would hire me. Pay my bills, take care of myself, have nice things? Those are things I worry about, and that's why you'll never see my name in the public record section of the gazette. Unfortunately, there are too many people out there don't don't have the same worries I would. What are you going to do about those people???
Some of you say massive penalties on a first. Are those of you that say that even aware of what the current penalties are? $856 fine, alcohol assessment costs, class costs, SR22 filing with insurance just for an occupational, raised insurance rates, and then a reinstatement fee when you do finally get your license back. It's not just a slap on the wrist. Some people just don't learn the first time.
My vote is a felony charge on a 3rd offense, along with lowering the bac to .02 on second and subsequent offenses.

Nordeana: Your response was great. The terms of each conviction seem fair and, yet, allow enough opportunity for the person to benefit from treatment.

Upon first and second DUI: Serve jail time but allow offenders to serve less jail time if they finish a treatment program. After they are out of jail, lose driver's license for at least 3 months for first and one year for second DUI, install ignition interlock for at least one year after first and 5 years for second DUI. Upon third and subsequent DUI's, lower the prohibited blood-alcohol level from 0.08 to 0.00, make DUI a felony with mandatory prison time of at least 2 years, with no time off if they finish a treatment program, and lose driver’s license forever.

Let's start making the people who continue to serve drunks responsible! We already know that the drunk can't make good decisions.

I always get a laugh out of that lock out vehicle device idea. If someone really is drunk, and they are not able to get around that, they literally may be the most un-resourceful person on earth. Real hard to have a buddy blow in the thing to unlock the device, Or pay someone off the street to blow it it for you. Or orse yet; people start bringing their kids to a bar so they can have the kid blow in the thing to un-lock the device. The state is seriously considering spending millions of $$$'s to put these devices in place. No doubt the company who would be getting that contract to install these things is also a huge campaign doner. pure symbolism over substance. My vote was to make a 3rd offense a felony. At least that should actually deter some habitual offenders.

Have it mandatory to install lock out devices on all vehicle, (like door locks and seat belts.. make it as a standard option for the vehicle.. EVERY VEHICLE THAT COMES OFF THE ASSEMBLY LINE OR INTO THE COUNTRY MUST HAVE THIS DEVICE INSTALLED... MAKE NATION WIDE AND NOT JUST A STATE OPTION..

While I think many ideas are good, most are expensive and unworkabke for many reasons. I say, increase the fines ( that's what all of them complain about, by the way, not jail time) and use the funds to pay for mandatory treatment with proven programs. Keep them on probation with an alcohol/home detention monitor which is far less $$ than jail, plus they keep working and contributing to society (raising children, paying taxes...) and they can't go out with negative friends. Then, pop them in jail for ANY alcohol use for one year for every DUI they have.

Make it like the 70's when the cop would give you a ride home! Half you brainless morons don't know how to drive the way it is so I make it a habbit to drive as little as possible so I won't get hit. Also helps saves the earth.

dont drink and drive. an what kind of idiot, would blow into someones interlock? but then again what kind of idiot would drink and drive?

Boy Dale you must be the most perfect person in the world!! Just remember, people in glass houses...................

latest news

http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne...

Those checkpoints will cause even more problems. I an see someone who is way over the limit plowing through one.

justsaynotomath: Good grief! Just don't drive with dope on you or in your car.

justsayno- I am one of the idiots. Maybe when you lose a family member to a drunk driver you might become an idiot too?

Boy, there are sure a lot of high tech gadget suggestions out there. Those of you with these brilliant ideas will be complaining when your taxes go up because you will and I will be paying for the cost of the bracelets, IID, jail, etc. etc. I can't wait until the state lowers the prohibited BAC to .04 or .02 for 2nd offence OWI. What will that do? Oh yea, increase the number the of OWI arrests because 2nd hand alcohol will have everyone intoxicated.

BigChris, No one is allowed to smoke in the jail or huber buildings.

Why is there talk always about the 3rd, 4th,or 5th time. Action needs to be taken on the 1st time. What makes someone drive drunk? other than a poor choice/judgement. It seems everything that has been talked about fails - why? What would make someone not drive drunk?

Perhaps the best solution is to confiscate the motor vehicle of anyone caught DUI after the second offense no matter who the car belongs to, unless stolen. The cars could be sold at auction and lienholders reimbursed. It's hard to drive drunk without a car.

Chris, I can tell you for a fact how scared $%^#less my friends were abought going to jail when I dropped them off at the courthouse. I am glad I don't associate with this crowd anymore but believe nobody likes jail.

jail time wont work....rock county jail is easy time ,plus most drunks dont have anywhere to live so free rent is fine with them.... u can smoke ,drink, and play cards in rcj, so what would be the punishment

road blocks to check sobriety on a floating schedule would work best to deter drunk driving. As one that used to drink every night at local bars for over a decade I can say this is the only one of the listed ideas that would worry me. I never got one drunk driving citation so those other things would not have worried me in the least. Mandatory jail sentence on the second offense of six months would deter those after their second one. It's time to stop goofing around about this problem.

I accept that stronger penalties are part of the solution that other states have implemented, but I just don't see how punishment breaks the cycle of addiction that generally accompanies chronic drunk driving.
.
The one thing that distinguishes Wisconsin from other states, aside from some laxity in its laws, is a higher rate of liquor licenses per capita -- the highest in the country, as the Milwaukee Journal has reported. I believe some concerted effort to identify cities with excessive numbers of sellers and persuade them to use attrition to reduce that number will help as much as any other approach.
.
At worst, the legislature could act and set an upper bound.

Wow Dale....did someone strike a nerve?

It's obvious this problem needs a multi-pronged attack. Well-monitored, mandatory and prolonged treatment programs for alcoholism must be part of the solution. First offenses can result in fatal accidents as easily as fourth offenses, and how many times did the offender drive drunk before being caught? Every offense is evidence of a serious error in judgement and a potentially deadly illness that needs tenacious treatment. For some individuals even social stigma, personal and financial loss and jail time aren't effective deterrents. They need to stop drinking and they need help that stays with them, possibly for years.

DaleB then don't drink and drive ,see how easy that was ................

DaleB i agree with you and more damn straight..

good point usaret. prohibition NEVER works...but i wont get started:) felony on dd number 2 and ignition interlock after 1. forever. 1 year in jail for every dd.

Another Idea: Expand the use of the alchohol bracelets and improve the technology. Make those on probation for alchohol-related problems wear the things as a requirement for their probation. I'm assuming here that people with multiple drunk driving arrests are on probation. The bracelets really are an effective deterrent!

all of the above is a better plan to keep drunks off the highways. i'm not against getting drunk. just do it at home or get a designated driver. get drunk every day. just stay away from the wheel.

Prohibition didn't work 80 yrs ago and it won't work today. We'd just end up with sneaky drunken drivers.
How about any driver convicted for a third time or more and after serving a sentence has a driver lic. issued in RED. If the individual wants to drink he/she will have to show the bartender/waiter/waitress this lic. so that they are aware they are serving an individual who has been arrested for at least 3 or more incidents of drunken driving. Might just prevent a serious accident down the road.

DaleB,I agree. Just yesterday,I was going to wave someone through so I could take my time and she just blew through the sign anyway.What if I didnt want to wave her through and took my turn? She would have hit me ! Where drunk drivers are concerned, well I guess you need judgment there.The .08 limit is dumb ! Anyone of us could have one beer with dinner then fail a breathalyzer test.Many people have different tolerances to alcohol.Im not bragging or proud,but I can have 2 or 3 with dinner and be perfectly safe on the road. Anymore than that and Im calling someone to drive me.To make roads safe? How about prohibition? That seems to be the only fix.Take it away and put a halt to drunken accidents! Everything else is illegal,why not alcohol?

Second offense should include jail time! Can someone tell me it doesn't? Road blocks, however, besides being ineffective, are an infringement on our 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

I am sick of drunk driving getting so much hipe, more accidents are caused by sober idiots than drunks. Are you going to start giving driving IQ's at road blocks and if you answer poorly the police will toss you in jail? I was t-boned and injured by a driver who failed to see a stop sign! It didn't hardly make the news but if she was drunk it would have been on the front page. How many of you reading this actualy come to a complete stop at a janesville stop sign? Lets start tossing all you jerks in jail. What makes your crime any less than a drunk driver? Now just go look in the mirror and say that!

itellu says:Look,anyone that has more than three drinks and drives hasn't a speck of concern for anyone.I'm sick of our da's/courts plea bargaining these cases. Secondly,We need to stop the DA/Courts from letting "certain offenders off the hook"! Everybody gets the same ticket!This "double standard society" has to end! The sooner,the better! Have one DUI,the next one you go to jail WITHOUT any of this Huber baloney! If you lose your job,your home,to bad! Grow up! Better than somebody's life! Wishes!