Props to the Timberwolves for having some guts.

[SlyPokerDog]

While we'll never know the truth I think one of the biggest reasons the Timberwolves were able to get Adelman is that they said he could bring his two sons on board.

Bringing a high school coach with multiple DUII convictions like David Adelman is a huge risk. One that I don't see the Blazers willing to take. One that the Blazers would be afraid of what people like Canzano would say.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Anybody who drinks and drives is clearly a horrible, horrible human being and they probably are just two steps away from committing murder or pedophilia ... slippery slope you know.

 

[Minstrel]

Anybody who drinks and drives is clearly a horrible, horrible human being and they probably are just two steps away from committing murder or pedophilia ... slippery slope you know.

I think the sarcasm is a bit misplaced. Doing it once is a mistake that perhaps shouldn't be vilified. Several times? That's pretty purposely risking lives. Especially since it's several DUI convictions...he's probably done it many other times without being caught.

Horrible, horrible human, maybe not, but a criminally irresponsible person.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

We just had a player busted with pot in his car this offseason in Camby. I do not think it is that controversial to hire someone that has an DUI.

 

[MickZagger]

We just had a player busted with pot in his car this offseason in Camby. I do not think it is that controversial to hire someone that has an DUI.

Seriously?

Getting caught with a little weed in your car is the same as getting multiple DUI's?

 

[e_blazer]

I don't have a problem with Adelman's son being hired. It's up to him to maintain his sobriety and obey the law. That said, the fact that there are people who don't think DUII is a big deal goes a long way towards explaining why there are still drunken idiots killing and maiming innocent people on our highways.

 

[BlazerBeav]

Yeah, I personally am glad to have nothing to do with David Adelman - driving drunk is the same as shooting live ammunition blindly into a crowd and every bit as dangerous. Screw that guy.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I'm all for parties and having a good time. But if you find yourself doing jail time because of alcohol, you have an alcohol problem, IMO.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I think the sarcasm is a bit misplaced. Doing it once is a mistake that perhaps shouldn't be vilified. Several times? That's pretty purposely risking lives. Especially since it's several DUI convictions...he's probably done it many other times without being caught.

Horrible, horrible human, maybe not, but a criminally irresponsible person.

It was a poorly worded joke on my part. I was trying to approximate the level of hyperbole Canzano would use if Adelman had hired his son if he were the Blazers current coach. (swing and a miss).

 

[jlprk]

In almost all DUIs there is no car accident or injury. The driver would have safely returned home. The legal system focuses on DUIs because of all crimes, it is by far the greatest revenue producer for the courts and police.

 

[tlongII]

In almost all DUIs there is no car accident or injury. The driver would have safely returned home. The legal system focuses on DUIs because of all crimes, it is by far the greatest revenue producer for the courts and police.

Exactly. It is a huge revenue generator and is advocated by MADD.

 

[Minstrel]

It was a poorly worded joke on my part. I was trying to approximate the level of hyperbole Canzano would use if Adelman had hired his son if he were the Blazers current coach. (swing and a miss).

Ah, I see.

 

[jlprk]

MADD is a false front which has about 2 members in each big city, both of whom are police wives. There are many bogus lobbying outfits like that, whose purpose is to make a few people seem like a lot of people. This gives a veneer of democracy to an oligarchy (new vernacular: the 1%).

 

[The_Lillard_King]

In almost all DUIs there is no car accident or injury. The driver would have safely returned home. The legal system focuses on DUIs because of all crimes, it is by far the greatest revenue producer for the courts and police.

If the legal system in Oregon is so focused on generating revenue for DUIIs, why do they allow a diversion program for first time offenders where the fine is waived if one completes an alcohol program (program that is independent of the state).

Fact is DUI drivers kill and injuried people on the road every year and the public wants more protection from this. It is actually less harm to society to go out and steal a car then it is to drive home under the influence.

It's not about money, it is about the public perception of DUII and the state addressing public concerns.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Just a bit of history.

At one time, a DUI in Oregon was defined as having a blood alcohol level over .15. The legal limit is now .08.

Simply put, they redefined the crime to create vast numbers of new "criminals". Meanwhile, drunk driving accidents are still primarily cause by people who are at .15 or above.

 

[RoyToy]

Speaking of the Wolves, I still want to steal Anthony Randolph from them. He's going to get no minutes on that team, so go ahead and make an offer.

His ceiling is ridiculous.

 

[MickZagger]

If the legal system in Oregon is so focused on generating revenue for DUIIs, why do they allow a diversion program for first time offenders where the fine is waived if one completes an alcohol program (program that is independent of the state).

Fact is DUI drivers kill and injuried people on the road every year and the public wants more protection from this. It is actually less harm to society to go out and steal a car then it is to drive home under the influence.

It's not about money, it is about the public perception of DUII and the state addressing public concerns.

That money that would go to the fines instead goes to treatment programs, attorneys, drug and alcohol counselors and in some cases ignition interlock companies. It probably cost more to go the diversion route and it stimulates the economy. Its become big business.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Exactly. It is a huge revenue generator and is advocated by MADD.

Yeah, well I'm madd about the chick in your avatar and have no doubt she's a "huge revenue generator".

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

While we'll never know the truth I think one of the biggest reasons the Timberwolves were able to get Adelman is that they said he could bring his two sons on board.

Bringing a high school coach with multiple DUII convictions like David Adelman is a huge risk. One that I don't see the Blazers willing to take. One that the Blazers would be afraid of what people like Canzano would say.

Guts?

I think it's kind of chicken ass myself to allow a coach to dictate who a team hires. Nice to know the inmates run the asylum.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Guts?

I think it's kind of chicken ass myself to allow a coach to dictate who a team hires. Nice to know the inmates run the asylum.

The Timberwolves wanted Adelman and those were his terms ... if the Wolves were so opposed to it, they should have hired somebody besides Adelman. Personally I think they hit a homerun getting him, allowing him to install his son is a minor concession.

 

[Minstrel]

The Timberwolves wanted Adelman and those were his terms ... if the Wolves were so opposed to it, they should have hired somebody besides Adelman. Personally I think they hit a homerun getting him, allowing him to install his son is a minor concession.

Yup, absolutely. And it isn't even remotely unusual for a head coach to get to pick his assistant staff.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Guts?

I think it's kind of chicken ass myself to allow a coach to dictate who a team hires. Nice to know the inmates run the asylum.

Phooey. Most teams let the head coach pick his own staff.

Besides, how is letting a coach pick his own staff constitute letting the "inmates" run the asylum? I guess the doctor shouldn't run the asylum either.

 

[jlprk]

The head coach already runs the asylum.

Apparently Paul Allen didn't want Rick back because he's pretty alcoholic. But the main reason was that management still had a good opinion of McMillan. Plus, in this town, you make any change, you got the Oregonian on your back.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I always find it interesting that people who drink and drive are vilified (and rightly so) but all the other idiots who are sober and nearly kill me every day with their cars are not. You know how many accidents occur on the freeways every day from morons who switch lanes going 70 miles an hour without signaling? Think about a freeway with 5 lanes and everyone cutting in and out of traffic to save 2 minutes off their commute. Or reading their text's while driving. How about locking those mother fuckers up too. And they do it intentionally. Personally I see no difference.

OK I am off my soap box.

 

[THE HCP]

Let's just say I "cruise" when I drive. I'm not one of those guys who is at a red light and stomps on the gas when it turns green only to stop again at the next light. I am the guy who never hits reds. I do have a V8 and will use it from time to time, I am an aggressive driver when I need to be, but around town I'm pretty chill. The other day, driving down Sandy thru Hollywood and this supped up racing Subaru was tailgating me and swathing lanes and speeding all over the place just to end up stopped at the next red. Then it would turn green and he'd start all over again...... cutting people off, weaving in and out of lanes. Then we get on I-84 at 39th...... He stabs off on to the freeway and I am behind him. This is when I usually hit the gas, on the freeway. This fool merges and decides he's going to drive 45-50 on the god damned freeway. I was shocked...... he acts like Mad Max on surface streets and Driving Miss Daisey on the fucking Interstate! Was so blown away by this, I slowed down and watched him....... 50 all the way to the Fremont bridge. Don't understand some people!

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Seriously?

Getting caught with a little weed in your car is the same as getting multiple DUI's?

He had two in a five year span and was not even thirty. On the second one he was not pulled over for erratic driving, but only because of a tip from a private investigator.

Bad? Yes.
Unforgivable? Absolutely not.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

That said, the fact that there are people who don't think DUII is a big deal goes a long way towards explaining why there are still drunken idiots killing and maiming innocent people on our highways.

Agree that DUI is bad, but how much punishment?

 

[e_blazer]

Agree that DUI is bad, but how much punishment?

When people ask this question, they're generally thinking of the typical situation where someone gets pulled over after having a few drinks, blows a .08 and is charged with DUI. The line of thinking goes that, hey just a few years ago that wouldn't even have been a chargeable blood alcohol level. The guy (or lady) would probably have made it home without any problem if the cops hadn't happened to be there. Why should they get hit with a big fine and other penalties? What's wrong with this line of thinking is that it presumes that you're going to make it home without a problem, but it overlooks the horrible consequences of those times when you don't make it home without a problem. That same blood alcohol level will get you charged with vehicular manslaughter if you happen to be involved in an accident where someone is killed. In Oregon, that can get you up to 10-20 years in prison. Something to think about next time you've had a few too many and think you can make it home without a problem.

 

[Masbee]

When people ask this question, they're generally thinking of the typical situation where someone gets pulled over after having a few drinks, blows a .08 and is charged with DUI. The line of thinking goes that, hey just a few years ago that wouldn't even have been a chargeable blood alcohol level. The guy (or lady) would probably have made it home without any problem if the cops hadn't happened to be there. Why should they get hit with a big fine and other penalties? What's wrong with this line of thinking is that it presumes that you're going to make it home without a problem, but it overlooks the horrible consequences of those times when you don't make it home without a problem. That same blood alcohol level will get you charged with vehicular manslaughter if you happen to be involved in an accident where someone is killed. In Oregon, that can get you up to 10-20 years in prison. Something to think about next time you've had a few too many and think you can make it home without a problem.

That is all true as far as it goes. The critics of the current system are pointing out that .08 isn't particularly inebriated. It is a legal line in the sand that was moved due to a campaign launced by an advocacy group that are not legal scholars, not scientists, not doctors.

.08 is so low, that now people that take any of hundreds of prescription medications; have a cold; have alergy flare up; some late shift workers; some jetlagged folks; etc. are functionally equivalent to those that blow right at or close to .08. That does not even include the entire spectrum of "distracted drivers" where texting has been shown in tests to be significantly more imparing than a .08 reading, and having an intense hands-free conversation (on average) is about the same as .08. Should we throw the book at everbody?

These were people that wanted blood - and they got it.

Most legal scholars had been pointing out for years before and continuously since, that the key way to reduce alcohol related traffic deaths is to keep repeat offenders off the road.

There is little evidence that focusing on a wider group of population (a bigger net) and treating them all equally harshly is the most effective use of resources. At this point, it has become a HUGE source of revenue generation for many local governments. They won't give it up now.

But in terms of public policy, isn't it more effective to spend 80% of your time and money focusing on the 20% of alcholics who cause the fatal crashes, then the opposite - which is the current MADD based policy?

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

E_Blazer, I think the diversion program is perfect for a first offense with that option only available once. Indiana has it available again if it is completed successfully and not for sure about Oregon. Second time it should result in losing your drivers license for a year plus jail time and the third time resulting losing your license for life plus more jail time. Just my opinion though.

Keeping a guy from being able to keep a job is pretty harsh. I could see him being fired from being around high school kids, but the pro teams are a different story.