When did this become about bashing college students? (2) wrote on Feb 3, 2007 9:30 AM:
" This ordinance is to directly affect students in this city. We are not transient and should be allowed a say in what happens regarding the laws in our city. Take a look how long the average college student stays in school. Most programs in our Universities are 4-5 years. This is a significant portion of a person's life. Why shouldn't we have a say in what affects such a large chunk of our time? So I say, speaking as a citizen of this city, if we are concerned with what the students in this town are involved in, maybe we should show concern by helping out where the problems areas are, such as near the river where students have started a watch program, instead of insulting other human beings because you think they are not of the same calibur as you or that they can't make decisions for ourselves. "
When did this become about bashing college students? wrote on Feb 3, 2007 9:13 AM:
" Since when does the city of La Crosse not appreciate the fact that the students who are attending the three institutions of higher learning here are also adults. I've heard enough about the "immature, binge-drinking, mommy's-boys, daddy's-girls, and all-around irresponsibility" of La Crosse's students. You forget that we are all adults, just like the rest of you. We made an informed decision when we came to this town to attend school. It wasn't some choice made for us by our parents. It's offensive to those of us who work 2, 3, or even 4 jobs, go to school, and find time to be social with our friends while still spending enough of our money to keep the economy in this town rolling right along. Without the thousands of students in this town La Crosse would hardly be the atmosphere that it is now. "
Older local resident wrote on Jan 30, 2007 5:04 PM:
" 1. Imagine the public humiliation that will greet La Crosse the first time someone ticketed for public drunkenness proves an intoxication level of less than 0.08. Jay Leno won't be the only one to observe that we prefer our drunks to drive.
2. We already have laws against disorderly conduct, littering, public urination etc. that are already not enforced.
3. Observe our nieghbor to the north to see how police "judgement" sometimes stands up to scrutiny. The police already have Breathalizers. At least use them.
4. Lets add more people to an already overcrowded jail system and build more jails. If they - the young, the poorest segment of society, can't pay the fine we will have to jail them, besides, if you are already too drunk to be in public without being fined the police can't very well let you stagger off! "
Missing the Point wrote on Jan 27, 2007 6:49 PM:
" Why do people defend the right to make themselves a public nuisance and threat to public safety due to their intoxication. You don't have that right and stop trying to pretend that you do. "
Mikey wrote on Jan 27, 2007 5:55 PM:
" I refer the readers to an article by Anne Jungen of the Tribune: "In order to be cited, individuals must show “obnoxious behavior,” such as staggering and vomiting, or be a danger to themselves or others, according to the ordinance. Other factors, such as slurred speech, stupor or loss of consciousness, can be considered as well."
Key part of this is related to behavior, not just a quiet buzz. I moved away from the UW-L area because I got tired of finding puke in my yard and fence posts kicked in. Maybe this ordinance will get those jerks before they do the damage. Such behavior is not normal even for college kids.
"
Oh boy wrote on Jan 27, 2007 4:12 PM:
" Arte we gonna have fun with this one. Those of you on the enforcement side of this one, better look over your shoulder. As some of us are going to take this ordinance to prove a point. "
Going Under wrote on Jan 27, 2007 3:51 PM:
" I really like all the attention and enforcement this problem is getting. Hopefully several of the bars will go under and they can turn downtown into a real downtown again. We have too mayny greedy bar owners lining their pockets at college students expense. "
to the students,alcohol comittee,police officers... wrote on Jan 27, 2007 3:03 PM:
" change bartime to midnight,ya don't "need" the two extra hours to get blasted,if ya do...go home and finish the job. bar owners,with all the trouble we are having,is that extra two hours worth it? i think not,and if you are going to lose revenue,up your prices just alittle to make up for it.win,win,situation! "
Guess What? wrote on Jan 27, 2007 2:05 PM:
" DID YOU PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE ARE CRACKHOUSES IN LA CROSSE....MAYBE THIS ISSUE IS A LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT THAN DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT TO TICKET PEOPLE FOR BEING DRUNK- BESIDES, THERE IS A DISORDERLY CONDUCT CITATION THAT EXISTS ALREADY. ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GIVE OUR POLICE MORE POWER TO ENFORCE, IT WOULD ALSO GIVE THEM MORE POWER TO ABUSE AND PROFILE.
WAKE UP LA CROSSE, AND DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT PEOPLE LIKE ALCOHOL IN OUR TOWN BECAUSE IT'S CULTURAL... "
To News Flash: wrote on Jan 27, 2007 12:53 PM:
" You are darn tootin the ordinance will (HELP) curb binge drinking IN PUBLIC. You bring up underage drinking and how underage drinking tickets don't curb that type of conduct. The intention is to get these people off the streets and out of the river. Most underage drinkers drink inside a home and in relative seclusion to avoid being caught. This is the intention of the public intoxication ordinance. Keep the people off the streets that are a danger to themselves and others. I am tired for seeing people urinate themselves, vomit all over and passed out all around town. Go downtown and have a few social drinks and go home. How simple is that! "
Question wrote on Jan 27, 2007 11:30 AM:
" I have no problem with the ordinance but I am concerned about what they are going to do with the person after citing them. I have heard several police officials indicate that they will cite and release the person. If that person is intoxicated enough to be cited, should they really be set loose on their own? "
I doubt wrote on Jan 27, 2007 10:02 AM:
" I doubt any of these deaths were the first time these people ever drank alcohol abusively. A peculiar thing happens when it is a young adult. The heartstrings are tied to these young people to their parents and the community at large. Because they are young, and starting their lives. What almost all have failed to realize is that the vast majority of us have that have continued to drink abusively and remain mute in front of our young people. A problem that covers the world. This is a controlled substance, and somehow we rationalize rules for us as we chastise the young among us? Alcohol related deaths dwarf the carnage in both world wars over the same time. "
Tickets wrote on Jan 27, 2007 8:31 AM:
" I think a lot of people miss the point. The city and police department budgets shouldnt have to deal with the consequences of people who choose to drink to excess and demonstrate public intoxication. Those individuals should bear the financial responsibility, not taxpayers. The public shouldnt have to pay for a manhunt (as has recently happened) to look for someone who has willingly consumed too much alcohol. Let those responsible bear the financial burden - maybe it will serve as a "sober" reminder of their poor choices. "
Why do we need more laws? wrote on Jan 27, 2007 7:35 AM:
" Isn't there enough laws on the books already? Isn't "public drunkenness" already covered by disorderly conduct? Why does this city believe that "binge drinking" is a new problem? Binge drinking is a fairly new term but people have been getting drunk in La Crosse forever. I hardly ever drink so this law will have zero affect on me however this does reflect onto me as a citizen of the community. It has been presented in such a way that it suggests that this city is overflowing with drunkards and that civil liberties mean nothing. Being drunk doesn't make a person disorderly, it makes them drunk. Police should be stopping or solving crimes not harassing law abiding people or making criminals out of law abiding people. Let's sit back and watch how downtown businesses die. Besides discretionary policing is unlawful and unconstitutional. "
Binge drinking defined wrote on Jan 27, 2007 7:15 AM:
" So if I drink 3 beers in a row, within an hour, I'm binge drinking? Give me a break! Who makes up these rules? Forget about it...I will drink 1 beer per day so that you losers can't say I'm binge drinking. Never mind it's a quarter barrel, but it's only 1 beer. "
Confused wrote on Jan 27, 2007 1:18 AM:
" Why are you trying to defend an imaginary "right" to be drunk in public? "
Why would students have a say in this? wrote on Jan 26, 2007 10:16 PM:
" They are transients. When their education is over they will leave and we will be stuck with the laws. "
Why do we only talk about students? wrote on Jan 26, 2007 7:34 PM:
" How about the chronics in Houska park? They can't/won't pay the fine. After some time we will be locking them up for this new law. Maybe we'll have a whole town of guys like OTIS who can just get drunk and check into the local jail for the night if it's cold or raining. I'm sure all us taxpayers want to house all of them in a newly expanded jail. Heck, once there we can pay for their medical and dental while were at it. The focus is on students and the cost will come from CHRONIC not BINGE problems. "
Obvious wrote on Jan 26, 2007 7:01 PM:
" Hey "World History" ... I think that they just proved your point. "
Pay Attention wrote on Jan 26, 2007 6:36 PM:
" Binge drinking is immoral. How could you possibility not recognize that something so destructive to so many people is morally wrong? "
To: world history wrote on Jan 26, 2007 4:55 PM:
" Morality? So now drinking is immoral? Please, don't start. "
Student wrote on Jan 26, 2007 4:14 PM:
" Anyone who honestly thinks that this will stop people from drinking heavily has got to be kidding themselves. They are eithor so out of touch with the average person who goes out and drinks or else is absolutly againts people drinking. I personally don't see a problem with the way everything is set up now. I don't agree with having the bartenders be responsible for the actions of others eithor because how do they know how drunk you are. We, in LaCrosse, should be lucky enough that we can walk home instead of driving like most other schools. Most other places would think that it is smart to walk home, but I guess not here. Why don't the cops do what they are suppose to do and actually get people such as drunk drivers or people who are actually committing a crime instead of innocent people walking home. "
World History wrote on Jan 26, 2007 4:00 PM:
" The history of great civilizations is that they fall due to the NEED to depend on governments to enforce morality after the citizenry has lost any personal sense of morality. That's where we seem to be. "
Woodrow Wilson -- wrote on Jan 26, 2007 1:12 PM:
" "Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of government, not the increase of it." "
re: To: VERY concerned UW-L student wrote on Jan 26, 2007 12:55 PM:
" great point there. there is nothing in the writing that says what will happen to the disorderly drunk. i could hypothetically get a ticket, be let go, and get another ticket walking down the street 5 minutes later. further, it obviously would provide more a reason to "keep partying", as there is no preventative follow-up measure included within the citiation. being of legal drinking age, this ticket will end up being the equivilent of an underage drinking ticket...and we all know how well those work at preventing underage drinking. but yes, i strongly agree with your statement. this does absolutely nothing to address preventative measures, especially in regard to the "catch and release" formula. "
Profiling college age students? wrote on Jan 26, 2007 10:16 AM:
" What are going to do about members of City enforcement and legal officials who are witnessed at game feeds, taverns, bowling, weddings, marathon drinking sessions unquestionably consuming to many accepted fluid ounces and then they or their friends place keys in the cars as the watch mute? Know anybody like that? You will! "
To: VERY concerned UW-L student wrote on Jan 26, 2007 10:12 AM:
" Exactly! So, does this mean the officer who deems you unfit to be in public because of your intoxication (without having to give you a breathalyzer, no less) will also provide a means for you to get home? Or will you just be let back to partying?
"
I don't get it wrote on Jan 26, 2007 10:07 AM:
" Why can't they just enforce the tickets for Disorderly Conduct?? "
What?!? wrote on Jan 26, 2007 9:52 AM:
" When are we going to enforce the idea of taking responsibility for our actions? Alcohol isn't to blame. It's poor decision making. What good is a fine? Mom and Dad will pay the fine and the young adult learns nothing, again shirking responsibility. Monetary reprimands only mask the real solution. It's a seeminly quick fix, but when have speeding tickets ever rid the country of speeders? Parents, educate your children!!!! Don't leave it up to the DARE program. Studies have shown it doesn't work. You ALONE have this responsibility. Take it and run. "
HERE WE GO AGAIN wrote on Jan 26, 2007 9:47 AM:
" Another lame piece of legislation that eats up time when real issues need to be tackled. Since alcoholism is technically a disease, shouldn't we also be locking up people with parkinson's disease for twitching on our steets, and asthmatics for unpolitely breathing our air? There is already an ordinance called disorderly conduct that exists- why reinvent the wheel, unless people want publicity? Let's pray that our city council and community leaders spend more time tackling a real problem, like migrant drug dealing criminals from Chicago, instead of bringing up the whole 'binge drinking' discussion. Since the city council is entertaining hollow legislation ideas, here's one for you...let's relocate downtown next to the bluff so there will be no more drownings. Anyone caught drinking within 1000 feet of the river would recieve a ticket for violating the river's restraining order against drunks. "
Support Your Students! wrote on Jan 26, 2007 9:45 AM:
" I think our city and college leaders should be endorsing and promoting the River Watch Group instead of giving out more tickets. Stand behind your students! "
Valerie wrote on Jan 26, 2007 9:15 AM:
" As someone who worked downtown as a bartender, I am happy to see the city finally doing something to hold the people who are intoxicated accountable. Did you know that lately the city has been ticketing bars, bartenders, and even friends who served people who were deemed "too drunk?" However, these people who were observed by police officers to be so drunk they should not have been served, were then just left "there", wherever they were. In my opinion if you are so drunk that the police are fining other people for it, you yourself, who chose to drink that much, should also be fined!
"
Dan wrote on Jan 26, 2007 8:40 AM:
" Way to pass the buck, let someone else do the dirty work, all of this has come around because of YOUR students that YOU cannot control, what are YOU doing to help control what YOUR students are doing,Please quit kissing up to our Mayor AND YOU DO SOMETHING. "
News Flash wrote on Jan 26, 2007 8:03 AM:
" News flash - binge drinking isn't going to stop because of a public intoxication ordinance. It is against the law and you can be ticketed for underage drinking - does that stop people from doing it? "
local resident says wrote on Jan 26, 2007 3:22 AM:
" a resounding yes, good see some good leaderhip, but must find ways to stop parties where excessive drinking starts: mayhaps probation a-n-d then expulsion from your institutions too???
"
VERY concerned UW-L student wrote on Jan 26, 2007 12:09 AM:
" this ordinance is very scary. could it possibly have been worded any more subjectively? what will it do to actually prevent such high levels of intoxication and protect the health of drinkers if just a $200-300 catch-and-release citiation is issued? will this lead to more people driving back rather than walking? i am very worried that our "campus leaders" are endorsing such a vague and impractical measure. "
Advertisement
