Quoted: It is not an elementary school. It is a university and they are adults. Further, being gov't property it is exactly what the US and State Constitutions cover. Drugs don't belong on Universities  Bwahahahahahahahah!

Irresponsible adults who often times are still trying to figure out how they'll handle being away from home for the first time and how to handle the freedom and responsibilities that come with that.

www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060325/NEWS01/603250326/1002

Report: Freshmen and drinking Out of the nest and vulnerable
First-year students most likely among undergrads to die, according to study

By JODY ROSELLE
Journal Staff
and
ROBERT DAVIS
and ANTHONY DEBARROS
Gannett News Service

The death of Cornell University freshman Matthew Pearlstone in a University of Virginia dorm March 18 brings to light a problem faced by many college campuses nationwide — alcohol and drug abuse.

Pearlstone, 19, died from alcohol intoxication. Pearlstone's grandfather, Howard Pearlstone said his grandson had a long-standing problem with alcohol use.

In one major respect, Matthew Pearlstone was typical of college undergraduates who die on or near campuses every year: He was a freshman who had been on campus only a few months.
A USA Today analysis of 620 deaths of four-year college and university students since Jan. 1, 2000, finds that freshmen are uniquely vulnerable. They account for more than one-third of undergraduate deaths in the study, although they are only 24 percent of the undergraduates at those institutions, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics analyzed by the American Council on Education for USA Today.

College administrators, public health officials and parents increasingly have become concerned about the safety of college students after highly publicized deaths on campus from alcohol abuse and other causes.

USA Today set out to take a close look at the problem, to study where and how students died over a six-year period and to determine whether their deaths could have been prevented.

Overall, the analysis of hundreds of reports from media, watchdog groups, schools and police found that illnesses, homicides and motor vehicle accidents are the leading causes of death, as they are for all Americans ages 15 to 24. Suicide, which is not always reported by the media, making the count in the analysis incomplete, claims as many lives as drugs and alcohol.

On April 26, 2005, a 20-year-old Ithaca College student died after he fell from his eighth-floor room in West Tower on the college campus. The death was later ruled a suicide.

But the dominant finding is that freshmen emerge as the class most likely to make a fatal mistake:

# Freshmen die at higher rates from illness, accounting for 40 percent of undergraduate deaths from natural causes.

# They're more likely to take their own lives; they account for 40 percent of all undergraduate suicides.

# They represent half of all undergraduate deaths from falls from windows, balconies and rooftops.

More of them die on school property; 47 percent of the undergraduates who die on campus are freshmen. This statistic has proven the most surprising, and disturbing, to analysts, experts and parents who imagine the campus to be idyllic. And safe.

“Parents want the university to be protective,” says Ann Franke, president of Wise Results, a Washington-based education law and risk management firm. But because some students arrive on campus without the skills to deal with new risks, and because they have privacy and other adult rights, “no college can guarantee 100 percent safety for students,” she says.

Alcohol tragedies have also struck Cornell on its campus. A resident adviser for freshman computer science major Daniel Pirfo, 19, reported him missing April 25, 2005. Pirfo's friends had last seen him when he left a poker game in Mews Hall on the university campus. His body was pulled out of Ithaca Falls May 11, 2005 by Ithaca firefighters. Authorities have said alcohol was involved in Pirfo's accidental drowning death.

According to the National Institutes on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, about 1,700 students ages 18 to 24 die each year from unintentional, alcohol-related injuries.

“It is really important for students to call for help in an emergency,” said Deborah Lewis, alcohol projects coordinator for Gannett Health Services at Cornell University. “A medical amnesty program has been implemented at Cornell to encourage students to call for help for friends who may be extremely intoxicated or seriously injured after drinking alcohol.

“Students who call on behalf of someone else who needs medical attention won't be subject to judicial action. The medical amnesty program also reduces or eliminates judicial consequences for the individual in need of medical attention.”

In addition, all incoming freshmen at both Cornell and Ithaca College must complete a 2- to 3-hour online course called AlcoholEdu before arriving on campus.

At Cayuga Medical Center, recent years have seen a positive trend: Anecdotally, medical personnel reported no increase for alcohol poisoning cases for 18- to 25-year-olds since 2003.

Laurie Roberts, a spokeswoman for CMC, said emergency department director James Baker encourages any students he sees to get involved with the campus alcohol treatment program.

New, dangerous freedom
Tucker Brown, 21, a junior at the University of Georgia in Athens and vice president of the student government association, says the sudden freedom college brings has an effect. “I think naturally you come to college; you don't have your parents there anymore; you know you can go crazy,” he said during a USA Today roundtable discussion in December on college drinking. “Not that you've been waiting to go crazy, but now it is an option, especially for those people who were on a tight leash.”

Helen Johnson, a Chapel Hill, N.C.-based consultant in parent relations for universities, says students face different types of risks than those facing young adults who go directly into the workforce.

These students “have the rubric of being legal adults, and yet they are not completely independent or completely capable of making adult decisions,” says Johnson, author of “Don't Tell Me What to Do, Just Send the Money: The Essential Parenting Guide to the College Years.” “Kids today have been more supervised and controlled than any other generation. It means they are ill-equipped to handle the responsibility and consequences of independent life.”

Though relatively few drink themselves to death as Danny Reardon did, the analysis found that about one in five of the students who died had been drinking, which impaired judgment and contributed to their deaths. “Unfortunately, we are bringing our children into an environment that is extremely dangerous,” Reardon says.

According to court documents, fraternity members put Danny in a room, closed the door and told others that they would care for him and to stay out. In a lawsuit, Danny's parents said that by preventing others “who might have been more responsible” from seeing their son, the fraternity members denied Danny “the help he obviously needed under the circumstances.

“Over a period of hours until he became cyanotic,” (a bluish discoloration tied to a lack of oxygen), “during which time Daniel lay unconscious, unresponsive and with vomit running from his nose,” fraternity members and others “did homework and passed about the duty to watch Daniel,” the civil suit said. The other students, the suit said, “provided absolutely no reasonable assistance to Daniel, despite his obvious need for such attention and help.”

Reardon sued the fraternity and reached an undisclosed settlement with some of the students and Phi Sigma Kappa, which denied liability.

Biology of bad decisions
Many deadly decisions are made by underdeveloped brains, experts say. Research has shown that “the brain continues to develop after 18,” says Denis McCarthy, a University of Missouri-Columbia researcher. “We used to think it was done. But a lot of the areas that are still developing have to do with making judgment calls.”

USA Today's analysis shows that Danny Reardon's death fit a pattern of fatal mistakes in judgment. Other examples:

# Boston University freshman Molly Shattuck, 19, of Ipswich, Mass., and Andrew Voluck, 20, a sophomore from Blue Bell, Pa., died together on Feb. 9, 2005, while walking on train tracks. Transportation investigators say the pair might not have known that a fast-moving train is nearly silent to those walking in its path.

# Seth Korona, 19, of Marlton, N.J., was hand-standing on a beer keg at Indiana University on Jan. 28, 2001, when he fell, suffering a fatal brain injury, the coroner said.

# Robert Meythaler, 19, of Owensboro, Ky., fell over a balcony railing at Furman University in Greenville, S.C., police said, during a spitting contest.

‘I was appalled'
The signs of death were obvious to emergency medical technician Thomas Dunn as he examined Lynn Gordon “Gordie” Bailey's face on Sept. 17, 2004. Answering a 911 call, rescuers found that the college freshman had died the previous night from an alcohol overdose.

Dunn felt sorry for Bailey, 18, who had rude, sexual comments scribbled across his face. He says he knew the University of Colorado student's death would rock the state, which was still reeling from the similar death of Colorado State University sophomore Samantha Spady, 12 days earlier.

Spady, 19, of Beatrice, Neb., died after consuming 30 to 40 drinks over 11 hours, the coroner said.

As he went door-to-door inside the Chi Psi fraternity house in Boulder, Dunn, a psychology professor at the University of Northern Colorado and part-time EMT, woke up students to ensure that there were no more victims from the initiation party. Looking around the squalid house littered with empty bottles, it was Dunn's experience as a teacher that spoke to him. “I thought, ‘Where did we let these kids down?' “ Dunn says. “Very little about that house, from what I saw, had any evidence of scholarly pursuits. I was appalled.”

As Dunn woke up still-drunken students and told fraternity leaders that Bailey was dead, he watched them go from crying to fearful and silent.

“I worried about their lives, too,” he says. “We're taking these kids whose brains are not fully developed, particularly the judgment centers, and they are drinking large quantities of alcohol so their judgment goes completely out the window.”

After Bailey's death, the Colorado Legislature enacted a law that grants immunity to anybody drinking illegally who calls 911 to get help for a drunken friend. Dunn says medics are now getting more calls.

National fraternity leaders are encouraging students to call for help without worrying about getting the fraternity in trouble.

“One of the biggest problems out there is students are afraid to call for help,” says Geof Brown, director of alcohol-education initiatives for the North America Interfraternity Conference, which has 5,500 chapters at 800 campuses. “Our groups are taking a more proactive posture these days.”

1 emergency, 2 lives lost
Young people in the outside world are likely to share their daily lives with adults, but students who live on or near campus are surrounded by peers. Thus their lives can be in the hands of other freshmen when they most need help.

On Jan. 29, 2002, a delay in summoning help contributed to the loss of two lives at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. According to a university police report, nobody knew that Karen Hubbard, a 19-year-old freshman from Withee, Wis., was pregnant. Hubbard's weight gain had been attributed by her roommate to “the freshman 15” — the pounds often packed on during the first year of college.

Hubbard was grunting and moaning in pain inside a bathroom stall between 10 and 10:30 p.m., according to the report and handwritten accounts by the other students involved; the university refused to identify them. But Hubbard's dormmates left her alone when she insisted that she had a stomach flu.

Then they heard a loud splash of water and a baby crying. “I have babysat a lot over the past couple of years,” one student wrote, “so to me, I clearly recognized this scream as an infant screaming.”

The students left to get a resident assistant, who checked on Hubbard but accepted her statement that she just had an upset stomach. Then, the police report said, the students “heard the toilet flush three or four times, followed by a tiny baby whimper.” But an hour passed before anyone peered over the edge of the stall. Hubbard bled to death that night. Her full-term baby girl, Julianna Marie Hubbard, was pulled from the toilet and revived, the police report said. But the baby died five days later.

None of the students was reprimanded, says Chuck Major, the university's housing director. “There were a lot of emotions going through the minds of a lot of the people, especially the resident assistant who was there,” he says. He says the confusing question for students is: “How do I help a friend and yet not cross a boundary of being like Mom and Dad?”

College health experts say freshmen in trouble are often helped by their peers.

“Student peers are actually the first ones who sense that there is something wrong,” says Alan Glass, a physician on the board of the American College Health Association. “I've seen numerous examples over the course of my career where other students brought to our attention their friends who were in need of medical attention.”

But Johnson, author of “Essential Parenting.” says freshmen are often ill-equipped to handle a real life-and-death situation. “The risk-taking part of their brain is fully developed, but the governor part that says ‘stop' and ‘wait' is not,” she says. “One of the great tragedies is these young 18- or 19-year-olds will live with the knowledge that they could have done something, but they didn't.”

Other freshmen have died when friends did not immediately call for help:

Jonathan Thielen, 19, of Fridley, Minn., fell off a bunk bed in a University of Minnesota dorm early on Feb. 17, 2001, after a night of drinking, according to university police reports. Thielen began vomiting but told friends he was OK, the reports said. They helped him lie on the floor with his head on a pillow. “I assumed he was fine,” the report quotes a student as saying, “because other friends of mine had fallen out of the bunk before.” The report quotes another student as saying Thielen threw up a couple of more times, “but then he was sleeping OK.” When students awoke the next morning, Thielen was dead of what the county medical examiner said were “traumatic head injuries due to fall.”

Travis Starr III, 19, of Martinez, Ga., fell out of the bed of a moving pickup carrying a group of students near the University of Georgia at about 2 a.m. on April 17, 2003, an Athens-Clarke County Police report said. His friends took him home to his apartment where he was groggy for most of the day, the report says. Friends took him to the hospital at 10 p.m.; he lapsed into a coma and died eight days later.

Joseph Kepferle, 18, of Lexington Park, Md., died on March 5, 2000, from bacterial meningitis at Towson University near Baltimore. Though he had been sick during the day, “his roommates thought he was either really hung over or had a bad case of the stomach flu,” says his mother, Deborah Kepferle. “It wasn't until they saw the purple rash on his stomach and trunk that they knew that was something not normal.”

Because meningitis can become a life-threatening infection within hours — and because freshmen are six times more likely to contract the infection than others their age — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended this year that freshmen in dorms be vaccinated.

A ledge, a deadly fall
No matter how many safety classes colleges plan, some freshmen don't live long enough to take them.

Jessica Horton, 18, of Suwanee, Ga., enrolled at the University of South Carolina, a college that for 35 years has taught students how to cope with freedoms through classes on safety called University 101.

After her family helped her move in on Aug. 17, 2002, Horton stayed up visiting with friends. In the early-morning, police investigators say, she climbed out of her sixth-floor dorm window to sit on a ledge. Police later found 11 Xanax tablets and a cut straw with traces of the drug in her purse, the report said. Horton had “snorted” the anti-anxiety drug in the past, her friend told police, according to their report.

Sitting on the ledge, she smoked a Camel cigarette and talked on her cell phone. Police believe she fell asleep there. At 6:20 a.m., a security guard saw Horton fall past a crape myrtle tree. She died before her family arrived home. The coroner found nearly twice the amount of Xanax in Horton's blood than is typically prescribed.

“It was a tragedy. When students engage in behavior that is unwise, often it is in the first weeks of school,” says Dennis Pruitt, the university's vice president for student affairs. Safety efforts, he says, “don't take hold the first night, the first day or the first week. It takes some time.”

Originally published March 25, 2006

Having just gotten ont of the joint on probation following a 2-5 sentence for tearing a tag off a matteress, I'll say that we really do have to rethink what we call a felony.

Quoted: Having just gotten ont of the joint on probation following a 2-5 sentence for tearing a tag off a matteress, I'll say that we really do have to rethink what we call a felony.

It's because you tore it off while engaged in snorting blow with a hooker that you got into trouble

In 20 years I will be more mature than I am now. Perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to buy a home. Driving? I do it well. See plenty of people older than me who can't drive for shit.
Point is, bad shit happens all the time. Everyday in every town in America.  But since some people are idiots maybe we should all be confined to plastic bubbles.  How many of these young men and women would have gotten introuble if they didn't go to college? Yeah, that's right. Some people are instilled with character, some are not, and a university is not a 4 year babysitting service.

At my son's university they have a shooting range and in the lower level of the dorm he lives in they have a gun lock room where they keep them stored.

You love playing this nanny state bullshit tc556guy and that was the entire direction of my post.  IMO your post plays right into it.

You take some stupid shit like this (see pic) and make it a felony as a deterent.
But you certainly can't use the death  penalty as a deterent  because...
[liberal]it's just  won't  deter anyone![/liberal]

Quoted: www.home.earthlink.net/~thegardenweasel/warning.jpg

Quoted: You take some stupid shit like this (see pic) and make it a felony as a deterent. But you certainly can't use the death  penalty as a deterent  because... [liberal]it's just  won't  deter anyone![/liberal]

LMAO. It deters me. And that's what I tell 'em while I look 'em right in the eye.

Quoted: Quoted: ALL non-violent drug offences Including sales to children? Including possession for sales by an adult on school grounds during school hours? Including administering controlled substances to children? Including smuggling controlled substances over the border? Should it really only be a misdemeanor to inject heroin into a 12yo girl?

Geez! You should run for office with those types of analogies...

I find myself agreeing with drjarhead more and more lately.

Quoted: You love playing this nanny state bullshit tc556guy and that was the entire direction of my post.  IMO your post plays right into it.

How exactly does my post prove some sort of "nanny state BS"?

The bigger issue is the notion of the state branding people "non-citizens" oppressing their rights for life. And, as could be predicted, the list of violations leading to such a mark has expanded. Misdemeanors, Felonys, "mental health"(don't get me stared on THAT can be interpreted/used), someone doesn't like you and asks for a RO...and so on.

Look how far we have fallen...now that their is a class of American that "can't have guns", our "leaders" have taken it upon themselves to be the decision-makers as to who should have them and who shouldn't. Something a Gov't should NEVER be able to do. We have ask, and prove ourselves innocent before we can legaly buy a gun(Think of the NICS).  It's all about turning a right into a privilege, and nothing to do with "making America safer" or the usual lies.

If you have served your time, and are able to be "on the streets", you should have all of your rights...including the most basic of rights: Defence and of arms.



And I would like to leave all with TJ's quote:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819)


C.H.

Is bilking investors a billion dollars a felony?

Quoted: Quoted: You love playing this nanny state bullshit tc556guy and that was the entire direction of my post.  IMO your post plays right into it. How exactly does my post prove some sort of "nanny state BS"?

It shows the failure and the futility of the nanny state.

People do stupid shit.  It doesn't matter where they are, it only matters who they are

You can argue that brain development crap all you want but out entire life is about brain development and any 18 year old knows the rules.  Got to wonder how any of us survive.
Problem as I see it is too many momma' boys and too many who don't understand that their decisions have consequences. Not the result of "brain development" but shitty parenting.  As I have frequently said, having a shitty parent is a risk factor for disease, injury and early death, in humans just as it is in nature.

Want to protect them from themselves by raising the age of adulthood?
Write you congressman and get the law changed.

Quoted: It shows the failure and the futility of the nanny state. People do stupid shit.  It doesn't matter where they are, it only matters who they are You can argue that brain development crap all you want but out entire life is about brain development and any 18 year old knows the rules.  Got to wonder how any of us survive. Problem as I see it is too many momma' boys and too many who don't understand that their decisions have consequences. Not the result of "brain development" but shitty parenting.  As I have frequently said, having a shitty parent is a risk factor for disease, injury and early death, in humans just as it is in nature. Want to protect them from themselves by raising the age of adulthood? Write you congressman and get the law changed.

I can't believe that out of that entire article, you pick on one sentence about brain development as some sort of proof of a nanny state and basically have the attitude  that bad things happen to people, so tough; sucks to be them.
You're amazingly ignorant.

Quoted: Quoted: It shows the failure and the futility of the nanny state. People do stupid shit.  It doesn't matter where they are, it only matters who they are You can argue that brain development crap all you want but out entire life is about brain development and any 18 year old knows the rules.  Got to wonder how any of us survive. Problem as I see it is too many momma' boys and too many who don't understand that their decisions have consequences. Not the result of "brain development" but shitty parenting.  As I have frequently said, having a shitty parent is a risk factor for disease, injury and early death, in humans just as it is in nature. Want to protect them from themselves by raising the age of adulthood? Write you congressman and get the law changed. I can't believe that out of that entire article, you pick on one sentence about brain development as some sort of proof of a nanny state and basically have the attitude  that bad things happen to people, so tough; sucks to be them. You're amazingly ignorant.

The entire article is about poor decisions of individuals resulting in bad outcomes in one of the most protected environments which exists for young people, the university campus. A microcosm of the nanny state.  It is the theme which runs through the enitre article yet you don't seem to get it.

And you call me ignorant?

In your dreams bud, in your dreams.

Quoted: The entire article is about poor decisions of individuals resulting in bad outcomes in one of the most protected environments which exists for young people, the university campus. A microcosm of the nanny state.  It is the theme which runs through the enitre article yet you don't seem to get it. And you call me ignorant? In your dreams bud, in your dreams.

And you don't seem to "get" that I posted the article in response to your claim that people in college are adults:

"t is not an elementary school.
It is a university and they are adults."

They clearly are not as adult in their decision-making as perhaps you want to think they are. And perhaps that needs to be taken into account when reviewing what  laws are appropriate for that age group. But of course you would deem that a nanny state action.

Quoted: Quoted: The entire article is about poor decisions of individuals resulting in bad outcomes in one of the most protected environments which exists for young people, the university campus. A microcosm of the nanny state.  It is the theme which runs through the enitre article yet you don't seem to get it. And you call me ignorant? In your dreams bud, in your dreams. And you don't seem to "get" that I posted the article in response to your claim that people in college are adults: "t is not an elementary school. It is a university and they are adults." They clearly are not as adult in their decision-making as perhaps you want to think they are. And perhaps that needs to be taken into account when reviewing what  laws are appropriate for that age group. But of course you would deem that a nanny state action.

People do stupid shit all the time.  There may be a relationship with age to some degree as young people of all ages make more mistakes. You've got to cut the apron strings some day and that means raising them to be intellignet, independent adults not Nanny State wannabees.

If you can't handle that then, AS I SAID, you should wirte your congressman and get the law changed!

You're kind of slow on the uptake there tc.  Maybe you need your prostate checked.
Brain mets, you know.

Quoted: Its something I have thought about from time to time.  One possibilty would to make any crime with a human victim a felony and any crime where the state is the victim a misdemenor. For example all drug charges would be misdemeanors, as would DUI and weopons violtions. But a DUI with injury would be a felony becuase it has a human victim. However that would mean even petty theft would be  a felojny.  but i think its a fair trade off. Misdemeanor if you hurt the state.  felony if you hurt a real person.

I disagree with DUI. Driving under the influence is actively putting people in harms way. There is no excuse for driving drunk.

In my state any offense which CAN be punished by 1 year in prison is a felony, felonies include all sorts of BS property and regulatory crimes.

My opinion, a felony conviction and the resultant loss of rights should require a jury conviction, and a sentence of 1 year, actually served, not released after 2 months, not given probation from the get-go, no plea agreement where the suspect walks if he's willing to plead to a felony, and then suffers permanent disability for a crime that was never proved. If you're going to take away a mans rights you need to be able to convince a jury it's necessary.

The charge doesn't even matter IMO, the issue is that a jury has to decide it's necessary.

Quoted: Its something I have thought about from time to time.  One possibilty would to make any crime with a human victim a felony and any crime where the state is the victim a misdemenor. For example all drug charges would be misdemeanors, as would DUI and weopons violtions. But a DUI with injury would be a felony becuase it has a human victim. However that would mean even petty theft would be  a felojny.  but i think its a fair trade off. Misdemeanor if you hurt the state.  felony if you hurt a real person.

I agree with that line of thinking, but would add one caveat - weapons violations by convicted felons would be a felony, a misdemeanor for eveyone else...



  - georgestrings

Quoted: In my state any offense which CAN be punished by 1 year in prison is a felony, felonies include all sorts of BS property and regulatory crimes. My opinion, a felony conviction and the resultant loss of rights should require a jury conviction, and a sentence of 1 year, actually served, not released after 2 months, not given probation from the get-go, no plea agreement where the suspect walks if he's willing to plead to a felony, and then suffers permanent disability for a crime that was never proved. If you're going to take away a mans rights you need to be able to convince a jury it's necessary. The charge doesn't even matter IMO, the issue is that a jury has to decide it's necessary.

That's why I said in an earlier post that there should be a separate judgement on Right's forfeiture.
Some crimes it should be automatic, some should go thru an additional process. There may be aggravating circumstances to less severe crimes that merit a rights forfeiture in some instances and I would not oppose that.  

Quoted: ALL non-violent drug offenses

Yeah....

Why should it be a felony for you to sell crack to kids as long as you don't use a gun...

I think your phone is ringing cause NASA is doing a re-hire...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The entire article is about poor decisions of individuals resulting in bad outcomes in one of the most protected environments which exists for young people, the university campus. A microcosm of the nanny state.  It is the theme which runs through the enitre article yet you don't seem to get it. And you call me ignorant? In your dreams bud, in your dreams. And you don't seem to "get" that I posted the article in response to your claim that people in college are adults: "t is not an elementary school. It is a university and they are adults." They clearly are not as adult in their decision-making as perhaps you want to think they are. And perhaps that needs to be taken into account when reviewing what  laws are appropriate for that age group. But of course you would deem that a nanny state action. People do stupid shit all the time.  There may be a relationship with age to some degree as young people of all ages make more mistakes. You've got to cut the apron strings some day and that means raising them to be intellignet, independent adults not Nanny State wannabees. If you can't handle that then, AS I SAID, you should wirte your congressman and get the law changed! You're kind of slow on the uptake there tc.  Maybe you need your prostate checked. Brain mets, you know.

There is a real world out there.
Real shit happens.  And it happens to all ages, believe me. It paid for my house. Maybe you should put your efforts into taking power tools out of the hands of old men. Now there is a real problem let me tell you. Or get a law passed to keep more than one kid at a time off a trampoline. Close every pool in America and fill 'em with concrete...Hey the sky's the limit. Why not just go fro theplastic bubble thing. We can all spend our days rolling around in bubble bliss bumping off one another in the perpetual safety of the nanny state.
You had better teach your kids to be self-reliant, independent thinking, responsible individuals. Just because you wet nurse them and baby their sorry asses doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to do so.

We live in a free country and in a free country people are free to make their own choices, free to make their own mistakes. Might go against your neofascist tendencies as we are ALL well aware and I am sure you would rather we were all nicely organized robots in our little plastic bubbles but it ain't going to happen. For those who would be happier living in such societies there are trains, boats and planes.  They will take you virtually wherever you want to go.

I thought Statutory Rape in CA was also a wobbler.  Depending on ages of participants.

In Mass anything carrying a prison sentence is a felony.  That's not particularly uncommon.  In many states you get sent to stae PRISON for felonies, and you go to county JAILS for misdemeanors.

Hence  a "prison" sentence implies a felony conviction, and a "jail" sentence implies a misdemeanor conviction, and a significant difference, but in some states that isn't necessarily so and it becomes a semantical issue.

IMHO, anybody who commits a felony should lose gun rights.  NOBODY unknowingly commits felonies.  You have to engage in behaviour that shows you are willing to do things that might injure or kill people or destroy their lives, and if you can make that decision, then you take your chances.

Either you all have been asleep at the wheel by missing this one, or I overlooked it in the 3 page jumble


HATE CRIMES

Criminal justice is punishment for one's actions, not thoughts. This is the most despicable and unjust form of law we have created.

Quoted: ALL non-violent drug offenses

I'd raise you one and take the offense completely out drug use and abuse among consenting adults.  The War on Drugs has inflicted way more collateral damage on society than the drugs ever could have done on their own.

Quoted: IMHO, anybody who commits a felony should lose gun rights.  NOBODY unknowingly commits felonies.  You have to engage in behaviour that shows you are willing to do things that might injure or kill people or destroy their lives, and if you can make that decision, then you take your chances.

Pa, you aren't listening.  As I said on page one, selling a recovered artifact from a National Forest for more than 500 dollars is a felony.

Is this worth losing gun rights over?  Or the right to vote?  To get a decent job, or appartment?

Quoted: I disagree with DUI. Driving under the influence is actively putting people in harms way. There is no excuse for driving drunk.

So is driving while sleepy.

So is driving while distracted.

So is driving while eating.

So is driving while putting on makeup.

Conspiracy to commit a crime should not be a felony.  

Anything involving constructive intent in lieu of an actual crime.

Quoted: Conspiracy to commit a crime should not be a felony.

Actually, I'd rephrase that to say a conspiracy to commit a crime should never be a worse crime than the crime itself.  

Quoted: Quoted: I disagree with DUI. Driving under the influence is actively putting people in harms way. There is no excuse for driving drunk. So is driving while sleepy. So is driving while distracted. So is driving while eating. So is driving while putting on makeup.

You have got to  be kidding...there is a huge difference between me munching on a Wendy's Classic Double with cheese and someone who is weaving all over the road because they are intoxicated.

*edit:

People can learn to drive while eating and can learn to drive even with distractions. Hell, maybe some chicks can drive while putting on makeup...but there is no way to drive effectively while drunk, since you are totally impared...

Quoted: Quoted: Conspiracy to commit a crime should not be a felony.   Actually, I'd rephrase that to say a conspiracy to commit a crime should never be a worse crime than the crime itself.

Much better.  

Quoted: You have got to  be kidding...there is a huge difference between me munching on a Wendy's Classic Double with cheese and someone who is weaving all over the road because they are intoxicated. *edit: People can learn to drive while eating and can learn to drive even with distractions. Hell, maybe some chicks can drive while putting on makeup...but there is no way to drive effectively while drunk, since you are totally impared...

Driving under the influence != totally impaired.  0.08 BAC != 0.4 BAC.  Stop dancing around, trying to make your argument fit.  Even mild sleep deprivation has been shown to be as debilitating to judgement and reaction times as 0.08 BAC (0.08 = driving under the influence).  Cold medication, also, adversely affects coordination, reaction time, and judgement ability.  The people that fall asleep at the wheel are just as guilty, no take that back, much, much MORE GUILTY of willful endangerment than the person leaving the bar with a 0.08 BAC who drives home safely.

What is the logical basis for making driving under the influence illegal?  And given that answer, why is driving while sleepy not?

Edited to add:  (Full disclosure) I drink maybe a beer once a quarter, drive sleepy much more often than I drink, and frequently eat while driving.  I have also, long ago in my dumb youth, driven impaired by alcohol.  If the logical rationale behind outlawing drinking and driving (and the trend is towards total prohibition) are applied fairly, then eating your beloved Wendy's while behind the wheel should be verboten as well.  

Quoted: Quoted: You have got to  be kidding...there is a huge difference between me munching on a Wendy's Classic Double with cheese and someone who is weaving all over the road because they are intoxicated. *edit: People can learn to drive while eating and can learn to drive even with distractions. Hell, maybe some chicks can drive while putting on makeup...but there is no way to drive effectively while drunk, since you are totally impared... Driving under the influence != totally impaired.  0.08 BAC != 0.4 BAC.  Stop dancing around, trying to make your argument fit.  Even mild sleep deprivation has been shown to be as debilitating to judgement and reaction times as 0.08 BAC (0.08 = driving under the influence).  Cold medication, also, adversely affects coordination, reaction time, and judgement ability.  The people that fall asleep at the wheel are just as guilty, no take that back, much, much MORE GUILTY of willful endangerment than the person leaving the bar with a 0.08 BAC who drives home safely. What is the logical basis for making driving under the influence illegal?  And given that answer, why is driving while sleepy not?

It takes like four drinks in an hour to get a 160 pound guy (me) to .08. I just drank with friends yesterday and I had three beers in the space of an hour. I certainly would have been unfit to drive.

Do you even drink? Are you one of those guys that thinks you drive better while drunk?

The logical basis for making dui illegal is that it deliberately puts others on the road at risk.

I certainly don't condone driving while exhuasted either. If people are going to do that then they should be responsible and drink a cup of coffee or something.

It doesn't matter whether it is cold medication, alcohol, or tiredness. It's simple. If someone is impaired then they should not be on the road.

*edit: Do you advocate shooting with a blood alcohol content of .08?

In order to keep this reasonable, without preaching about what should and shouldn't be illegal, I will frame this in the context of what is currently legal and illegal.

Crimes can be broken into two very large groups:

Crimes of possession, which would include weapons, drugs, stolen property, etc...  These should almost never be felonies.  Exceptions would include possession of weapons which are inherently dangerous to many people, even if not actually in use such as WMD's.  I don't care how nice you are, keeping VX in your garage is fucking stupid.  Also, possession of a hundred kilos of cocain is obviously not for personal use, which leads me into:

Crimes of action:  These can be broken into the serious, ie. murder, rape, attempted murder, and other real nasty shit, which should all be felonies, and the non-so-serious, such as theft, dealing drugs, and assault.  This is where all the gray areas are.  IN the case of assault, it could mean a fist-fight, which should probably be a misdemeanor, unless serious and/or permanent harm is done.  I guess this is where the degree system comes into play.  

I guess it really comes down to the way I look at things:  do whatever the fuck you want, I don't care, but the moment you start threatening or hurting others, you need to pay.  How much you pay should be based on how many people are affected and how badly.

Someone mentioned cheating on taxes.  IMO, never a felony.  You get caught, you serve the time as a misdemeanor AND pay back every cent you owe with interest.  No exceptions.  The longer you do it, the more you're screwed.  I figure a few will figure out how to weasel out of it, but not enough to make a difference.  Seriously simiplifying the tax system would probably help too.

Quoted: Do you even drink? Are you one of those guys that thinks you drive better while drunk?

I drink very rarely (maybe once a month), and when I do drink, I end up drinking about half a beer.  That being said, back in my younger, dumber youth, I did drive after drinking, and was probably legally impaired a few times when I did.  I've also driven sleepy, and driven while eating.  And I was probably more of a danger to other drivers when sleepy, eating, or trying to talk on the cell phone than when I was impaired.  

The logical basis for making dui illegal is that it deliberately puts others on the road at risk.

And I absolutely agree with the logical basis.  But the logical basis (deliberately putting others on the road at risk) can be applied to any other circumstances, but isn't.

I certainly don't condone driving while exhuasted either. If people are going to do that then they should be responsible and drink a cup of coffee or something.

 

A cup of coffee doesn't make up for lost sleep.  Either does rolling the window down, or playing loud music.

It doesn't matter whether it is cold medication, alcohol, or tiredness. It's simple. If someone is impaired then they should not be on the road. *edit: Do you advocate shooting with a blood alcohol content of .08?

Absolutely not.  I don't advocate drinking and driving either.  I advocate logical laws applied consistently.

Quoted: Conspiracy to commit a crime should not be a felony.

To include conspiracy to commit murder? Such as hiring a hit man to murder a spouse or business associate?

Quoted: I thought Statutory Rape in CA was also a wobbler.  Depending on ages of participants.

Not in the traditional sence.

If there is less than 3 years age difference then its never prosecutable as a felony. If there is more than three years age difference then its a wobbler.

Quoted: Quoted: ALL non-violent drug offenses I'd raise you one and take the offense completely out drug use and abuse among consenting adults.

In my state drug use (H&S11550) is a misdemeanor punishable by NA classes. 10 years ago we used to give 90-days jail for it. For PC1000 PC 1210 and Prop 36 changed all that.

Is drug use really a felony in any state?

I think the firearms disability ought to apply to "intentional" killings and the "traditional" felonies where the FELONY MURDER rule can apply (i.e., if you're involved in one of these felonies and someone dies, its murder).

In Colorado, felony murder applies to:

Arson, robbery, burglury, kidnapping, sexual assault.

But in my view, there are a lot of crimes NOW classified as felonies which, assuming the guy goes to prison and "pays his debt", should not result in permanent firearms and voting disabilities:

Negligent Killings, except for DUI killings.  (i.e., driving too fast for conditions, etc).

Heat of passion assaults, except those with deadly weapons (these used to be misdomeaners, in my state they have been changed to felonies).   If someone calls your wife a dirty whore and you punch them in the mouth in the heat of passion, congratulations:  You're now a felon.

Reckless Vehicular Assult, except for intoxication offenses.  Again, this is not to say that someone who drives reckless and gets in a wreck injuring another person should not be charged and punished.   The question is whether after taking his punishment he should forever be prohibited to own guns or from voting and participating in government.  I think not.

Lets turn, now to some other interesting crimes in my state:

In Colorado, they call this the "daddy's late" felony.   Its a felony for "any parent or other person" to voilate a custody or visitation order "with the intent to deprive the lawful custodiean of the custody or care of the child."   The only defense is if it was a "danger or welfare" situation (i.e., daddy took the kids because mama brought them to a crack party).    There are reported situations of dad's being late with their kids getting charged with this, although I'm not aware of any convictions recently in my area.   Its a class 4 felony.   And the permanent removal of gun ownership or the vote here is VERY CLEARLY horseshit.  

Now, lets turn to crimes against property.   Again, the question is not one of punishment.   Throw those convicted of these crimes in prison, make sure they serve their time.  But I'm of the view that if many of these offenders are not "dangerous" enough to continue to be in prison, they're not dangerous enough to permanantly disarm either once they're out.  

One big problem with the "property" theft crimes is that they are generally graded from from misdemeanor to felony based on the dollar value of the thing stolen, damaged, whatever.   BUT, and this is huge, they number here have not been adjusted for inflation in most states.   Meaning that more and more crimes of less and less "actual" severity if one were to use inflation adjusted dollars are becoming felonies.  

And, lets not forget our friends in the recording industry and the felony laws they've got put on the books.

In Colorado "copyright" music offenses are CLASS 6 felonies!   Be careful buring that CD, especially if you give it to your girlfriend or trade it to a buddy as that's a transfer for value and a CLASS 6 FELONY offense.   No guns for you!  NO votes for you!   No public office for you!

Then there's some interesting criminal activity that will certainly involving "bad actors" does not seem to me to require that they be out there defenseless 10 years later when they get out of prison:

Forgery, for example, is a very low class felony, but it is still a felony.

Possession of a forged instrument, also a felony.

Writing a "bad check" is another one of those things where its more and more of a problem because of the failure to adjust "numerical" points in the statutes for inflation.

In Colorado, its a felony to have a bad check of more than $500, but the crime really is different for the same $500 check if written in 1975 as opposed to 2005, ya see.   And writing bad checks:   Slimy, sucmbag personality:   Lock em up.   But why make them permanently unable to own guns?  BTW, if you pick up an old check book from the account you closed a month ago and accidentally write a check from it:  FELONY.

Then there are the "banker protection" felonies.

For example, under C.R.S. 18-5-802, if you're an investor and you buy a "distressed property" i.e., one that's in default or goes into default under its deed of trust within 18 months of your purchase, and you fail to apply every penny of rents you get while holding that property to the past due amounts, well then you've commited a class 5 FELONY.    While there is admittedly some sharp dealing going on with equity skimming, the original lender, it must be remembered, can always FORECLOSE on its deed of trust.   But if they decline and you don't give them every red cent of the rents you get after yourself taking the risk of purchasing the distressed property, you're a FELON.  
Should THAT guy have permanent gun disability?

Not to forget the "bible thumping felonies":

In this category in my state, we have:  

Bigamy:   Cohabitate with the new g/f while you're divorce is going through?  In Colorado, that's a possible FELONY, believe it or not.  Cite:  18-6-201.

Contributing to the Delinquency:  That's inducing, aiding, or encouraging any minor to violate ANY law.   My grandfather, when he let me sip his wine and family dinners, was contributing to my delinquency.   Its a class 4 felony.

Then of course, there's the "use" and "posession" of controlled substances, which are responsible for a lot of the felony convictions.  I'm not talking about the dealers, who often resort to violence etc. to sell their wares.  I'm speaking of the users.   As before, if you want to criminalize somehting, then fine, lock em up.    But when you attach a permanent disability for the rest of their nature life, that seems excessive to me on some crime situations.   I know a kid who has a felony conviction for possession of drugs when he followed the Grateful Dead years and years ago.   He cleaned up his act, went to law school, and now he works in D.C. at a prestegious law firm.  But he still cannot defend his family almost 20 years later because of that felony conviction.  

Quoted: Forgery, for example, is a very low class felony, but it is still a felony. Possession of a forged instrument, also a felony. Writing a "bad check" is another one of those things where its more and more of a problem because of the failure to adjust "numerical" points in the statutes for inflation. In Colorado, its a felony to have a bad check of more than $500...

with Identity theft becoming one of the fastest growing crimes, those three need to be felonies in every state.

Quoted: Quoted: "Felon in possession" gun laws You are in favor of criminals having firearms?

Violent criminals have them anyway.

Non-violent felons shouldn't be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families.

Further, you must have missed the discussion where we indicated that most violent felons are getting let out too early, if they should at all.

Before you accuse me of dodging, "yes."

Your spin is not appreciated in this thread.

Quoted: Quoted: Forgery, for example, is a very low class felony, but it is still a felony. Possession of a forged instrument, also a felony. Writing a "bad check" is another one of those things where its more and more of a problem because of the failure to adjust "numerical" points in the statutes for inflation. In Colorado, its a felony to have a bad check of more than $500... with Identity theft becoming one of the fastest growing crimes, those three need to be felonies in every state.

Again, whether you call it a felony or call it a petty offense, for my view the main quesiton is punishment and sentencing.   I'm all in favor of punishing the hell out of those who do identity theft.  

BUT, the issue is whether they should carry the "felony disabilities" of loss of the vote, loss of the ability to own guns, and loss of the ability to seek or hold political office.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "Felon in possession" gun laws You are in favor of criminals having firearms? Violent criminals have them anyway. Non-violent felons shouldn't be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families. Further, you must have missed the discussion where we indicated that most violent felons are getting let out too early, if they should at all. Before you accuse me of dodging, "yes." Your spin is not appreciated in this thread.

My "spin"? I don't care if its 'appreciated" or not. Why should MY opinion count less than anyone elses on this or any other issue? because you don't agree with it? guess what: thats the real world. A difference of opinion will be the fact of life if you aren't preaching to the choir.

And it doesn't matter if they manage to get ahold of them or not through black market means. It should not be EASY or legal or them to possess firearms.

As for convicts getting out too early, the responses I typically see are "they  shouldn't be let out at all, or they should be shot". Neither one is practical , and borders on excessive punishment for many crimes. So whats the realistic solution. Not the internet hero solution.

Quoted: Quoted: IMHO, anybody who commits a felony should lose gun rights.  NOBODY unknowingly commits felonies.  You have to engage in behaviour that shows you are willing to do things that might injure or kill people or destroy their lives, and if you can make that decision, then you take your chances. Pa, you aren't listening.  As I said on page one, selling a recovered artifact from a National Forest for more than 500 dollars is a felony. Is this worth losing gun rights over?  Or the right to vote?  To get a decent job, or appartment?

Yes. Guess they shouldn't be engaging in that behavior, should they? "Recovered artifacts" are often irrepaceable items stolen for profit. Why shouldn't it carry a maximum penalty?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "Felon in possession" gun laws You are in favor of criminals having firearms? Violent criminals have them anyway. Non-violent felons shouldn't be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families. Further, you must have missed the discussion where we indicated that most violent felons are getting let out too early, if they should at all. Before you accuse me of dodging, "yes." Your spin is not appreciated in this thread. My "spin"? I don't care if its 'appreciated" or not. Why should MY opinion count less than anyone elses on this or any other issue? because you don't agree with it? guess what: thats the real world. A difference of opinion will be the fact of life if you aren't preaching to the choir. And it doesn't matter if they manage to get ahold of them or not through black market means. It should not be EASY or legal or them to possess firearms. As for convicts getting out too early, the responses I typically see are "they  shouldn't be let out at all, or they should be shot". Neither one is practical , and borders on excessive punishment for many crimes. So whats the realistic solution. Not the internet hero solution.

Your opinion counts, and it is even appreciated.  Your response, however, was terse and designed to elicit an emotional reponse and did not clearly state my case.