>I've only been saying that "non-deterrence" is a flimsy argument against CP.

Yeah, I was focusing on that because GW said in the debate that deterrence is the only justification for CP.



>
>>4) Increase penalties for DUI.
>
>Except this one, a little bit. My feeling is that there should be a fairly stiff penalty on the *first* DUI offense, about as now exists most of the US. But almost anyone can make a mistake once, even George W. However, then there should be an enormous increase in punishment severity for a second or further DUI offense.

I would agree with this. We all make mistakes. The point is to learn from our mistakes and not do it again. A serious but not crippling penalty for a first DUI (say $500 fine) would make sense. Second, third, etc. indicates a habitual pattern and a inability to learn from experience. Jail time might get the point across.



>>5) I would support a constitutional amendment authorizing the creation of a class of products and services which are legal (for adults) but cannot be advertised. Alcohol, tobacco, marijauna, gambling and prostitution for instance.
>
>A CA will never happen, only slight federal policy adjustments can be made. IMO, control of the actual laws belongs primarily in the domain of States' Rights, though I agree many should "loosen up" on these relatively "victimless" so-called "crimes," I have a similar Libertarian-style view as you.

Basically wishful thinking on my part. Nice to know we share similar view points.

Peter :-)