saxcat70,
I partially agree with your assertion that focusing on the effect will not solve the problem. However, one big issue we have is that too many people are able to achieve too many DUIs. One way to solve that problem is to increase prison sentences. It will have the dual effect of keeping dangerous people from having the opportunity to get behind the wheel, as well as offer a significant deterrent to anyone who could otherwise potentially be another multiple offender.

The root of the problem is our culture, though. People feel like drinking and driving is not a bad thing. Not only that, some people feel embarrassed to say they are too drunk to drive, and would rather just take their chances.

I do not think that we would be able to stop offenders from consuming alcohol. I'm not sure how you propose to implement that. Should they get a special ID that says they can't buy alcohol? Liquor stores and bars would have to check ALL IDs then, not just those who appear to be under 40. Even if that did happen, people under 21 buy alcohol all the time, someone older than 21 would certainly not have a more difficult time obtaining alcohol. Do you propose "testing" the offender every day, or every other day? You would need almost constant supervision in order for that to be effective, and it would likely be more costly than imposing tougher prison sentences. Maybe you have some other solution you think would work. But prohibition didn't work. I do not see any solution, besides locking people with multiple offenses up in prison, that could stand any better chance than prohibition.

My mind remains open, by the way. I'm just not sure how you plan to accomplish this. It's like me saying regardless of your position on climate change, if we just develop machines capable of perpetual motion and produce no green house emissions, we can reduce our carbon footprints to nearly zero in a very cost effective manner. Okay, we are at step A, and there is the solution, at step Z. How do you get from A to Z?

thekai, your mind is so closed.

Taking a license away does nothing, as someone mentioned, they will drive anyway. Why not take away the vehicle on the first offense and auction them off ,using the funds for further enforcement ? Replacing a vehicle would be more difficult to do and stress the importance of sobriety. Too harsh ? So is death !

I think the media just tries to keep stirring the pot. Maybe a better way to title these articles would be: " Wis Legislators circulate drunken driving bills"
Silly me, they won't do that when negativity sells! Keep the public divided.

it does not make sense to have a bill that doesn't effectively deter the offender...what kind of a message does it send if the 1st offense is a misdemeanor? it says 'we'll let your stupidity ride for now, but later, we may come down a bit harder on you when you do this again'...sounds like the legislators aren't really serious about the issue...

What else is in the bill? It is common practice to push through a "no brainer" bill and tack on other items and pork.

Professor,
They make criminals out of themselves. They earn it.

saxcat70,
Sure, we'll just tell them they aren't allowed to drink alcohol. That'll work. I'm sure they will comply. It certainly prevents people under 21 from drinking, so it has to work on a hard-line alcoholic, too.

Making first offense OWI criminal will do virtually nothing to deter OWI. Nothing. It will, however, turn thousands of WI citizens into criminals. And there are practical problems--like adding thousands of cases to an already over-burdened criminal system (first offense owi is now handled primarily in municipal courts, which are civil, not criminal courts). Punish, yes; make criminals out of thousands--no.

I would like to see the Gazette run a detailed news story on the Scott Walker LEGAL DEFENSE FUND that continues to move large amounts of money to represent him in the FBI John Doe Investigation.

On December 31, 2012 - "Walker Transfered $40,000 To Legal Fund"

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquart...

"Randy Hopper(republican)Former WI State Senator Arrested For Drunk Driving"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19...

"Randy Hopper Found Not Guilty Of DUI Charge After UNION CONSPIRACY DEFENSE"
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co...

"Randy Hopper Blocks News Of His Drunk Driving Arrest From HIS Radio Station"
http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2011/10/...

"Randy Hopper"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Hoppe...

Any alcohol related legislation that focuses on the effect, will not gain my support. Focus on the problem, alcohol. How about we make it illegal for alcohol offenders to obtain alcohol? the driving is not the problem, the alcohol is. I am not for prohibition, I drink nearly every day, at home. We need to stop allowing alcohol offenders get their hands on the stuff legally. That will be the start of reform.

I think all you teetotalers go too far , no one lives for ever . Funny how we all made it this far dont you think ?

Too late to catch Scotty's little friend, Brian Deschane.

I see the local fringe cant grasp the distinction between toughening punishments and limitations on something already illegal and banning something currently allowed. The inability to see how enforcing current laws with greater penalties for law breakers is needed while attempting to compare this with banning a legal item is the ultimate of apples to oranges faux comparison.

Passing more laws WONT fix the problem, sound familiar??

I will not go the route of the gun huggers here, I will agree with this path. More laws and regulations WILL work, WILL save lives, I am all for it.

Like in the gun argument, it wont keep drunks off the road. Maybe we need to do something about getting alchoholics better treatment? Similar to the mental health argument with guns, get it?

You have to change the culture of drinking in Wisconsin before you will see a reduction in the number of people who drink and drive.

While the bill doesn't go far enough, we need to start somewhere. Finally a bill that the GOP could introduce that I would agree with!

Right just make sure you enforce then this time because I am tired of seeing drunks with multiple DWI convictions and it's enough.

It's rare that I will give Alberta Darling credit, but here I will. I think that Wisconsin needs to step up enforcement and punishment for alcohol related driving offenses.

drunks dont care if they have drivers liscense or not. last week i read where a wis guy was arrested for his 11th drunk driving offense, so judge why hasnt he been in prison? but a drunk can be put od disabilty and get a monthly check and free medical. i have a half brother was charged with 8 felonies abuse causing death of a animal and what the judge gave him was a $600 fine and put on disabilty cause he was a drunk. should be in prison.

Surprised a politician is introducing a bill that betters the general public.....just doesn't go far enough, you get a 3rd DUI you should loose your driving liscense for LIFE!

Ooh... The Tavern League of Wisconsin will not like this...

I'm not sure how any person of reasonable mind could be opposed to this. I believe Darling tried to pass something similar in the very recent past, and it never gained traction. Hopefully our legislators make it happen this time.