>On the subject of drunk drivers, I become a regular neo-con. First offence, take away their car and sell it. Take away their license for a year. Second offense is jail time, the car gets sold, and no more driver's license.
>
>And this assumes simple DUI. If they kill somebody, even on a first offense, it's murder, plain and simple.
>
>I agree with you. It is hard for me to argue against ANY firm punishment for DUIs. If a state decided to put a drunk driver who kills someone in the electric chair (which will never happen), I'd find it difficult to argue against it.
>
>Years ago, I dated a girl who had a huge DUI (something like double the legal limit) after we broke up. She somehow got her rich father to intervene, and she wound up getting a very light punishment. She flaunted to everyone how she beat the system, and it angered me so much that I confronted her, got in her face, and gave her an earful. I scared her so much that she wanted to call the cops, but she realized that the local cops were angry that she got off light.
>
>My nasty moral streak covers drunk driving, smoking, child abuse...and people who don't like .NET. ;)

Well, I'm with you on drunk drivers, and child abuse (which afaic is one of the worst crimes I can think of), but I'm more ambivalent on smokers. Just as long as they don't follow me around, I don't care if they smoke (unless they smoke around their children, which is child abuse). I'm not a big fan of non-smoking restaurant and bar laws. I'm an adult, and I can easily choose where I want to eat or drink, or not. Given a vote, I'd vote against such laws, but we have them, and I'm certainly not interested in crusading to change them.