Drunk driving? Play games

[Fluff and Stuff]

This is the kind of stuff we need to push for in NH.  It gets the people that like low taxes, the elderly, and the drunks to form a grand group that will never be taken.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mahjong_penalty

TAIPEI, Taiwan - Drunk drivers in Taiwan can now choose their penalty: Pay a fine or play mahjong with the elderly.

ADVERTISEMENT

Petty criminals in Taiwan are increasingly being handed a variety of civil duties rather than serving time in prison or cleaning the streets, said Hsu Yi-ling, an official at the Taoyuan Prosecutors Office in northern Taiwan.

Playing the popular Chinese tile game of mahjong with token money has taught offenders to love and care for the elderly, Hsu said.

"The offenders first dismissed the duty as wasting time, but they soon discovered they were respected and drew satisfaction from helping the elderly," Hsu said.

Instead of jail terms, the Taiwan government has encouraged prosecutors to hand out civil service duties to petty criminals, such as first-time burglars and those posting nude pictures on the Internet, she said.

[JonM]

Thanks to the activities of the anti-drinking crowd, drunk driving is not seen as a petty crime any more.  Perhaps it would be a fitting punishment for exercising free speech outside of a free speech zone.

[aries]

Thanks to the activities of the anti-drinking crowd, drunk driving is not seen as a petty crime any more.  Perhaps it would be a fitting punishment for exercising free speech outside of a free speech zone.

Try three years in the limey slammer, if you used your implied freedom of speech to, after years of research and a degree on the topic, question historical evidence and accounts of Nazi activities...

Sounds an awful lot like 1984... is Oceania at war with Eastasia or Eurasia? Better not ask!

Edit: I realize the 2nd line was better suited in the post on that topic, but I'll leave it. Just be aware that I realize this.

[Fluff and Stuff]

Thanks to the activities of the anti-drinking crowd, drunk driving is not seen as a petty crime any more.  Perhaps it would be a fitting punishment for exercising free speech outside of a free speech zone.

The anti-drink crowd sucks because they don't care about the elderly!

[intergraph19]

Thanks to the activities of the anti-drinking crowd, drunk driving is not seen as a petty crime any more.  Perhaps it would be a fitting punishment for exercising free speech outside of a free speech zone.

I wouldn't call drunk driving a petty crime.  Maybe the first time, but after that it gets dangerous.

[Fluff and Stuff]

Thanks to the activities of the anti-drinking crowd, drunk driving is not seen as a petty crime any more.  Perhaps it would be a fitting punishment for exercising free speech outside of a free speech zone.

I wouldn't call drunk driving a petty crime.  Maybe the first time, but after that it gets dangerous.

It is usually not dangerous for the drunk driver.  It is hard for me to understand why their is a law against have a few drinks and driving since all 5 of the parents I had growing up did it all of the time with no problem.

[ravelkinbow]

I have to disagree.  In my line of work I have seen many injuries.  The worst one was when a whole family was wiped out by a drunk driver getting on the highway in the wrong direction.  It was a holiday, the 9yr old boy lived but was trapped for over an hour with his 12yr old sisters dead body across him while the fire fighters worked to cut him out of the car and his mom and dad dead in the front.  The drunk driver walked away with a few bumps and cuts.

[Fluff and Stuff]

I have to disagree.  In my line of work I have seen many injuries.  The worst one was when a whole family was wiped out by a drunk driver getting on the highway in the wrong direction.  It was a holiday, the 9yr old boy lived but was trapped for over an hour with his 12yr old sisters dead body across him while the fire fighters worked to cut him out of the car and his mom and dad dead in the front.  The drunk driver walked away with a few bumps and cuts.

Like I said, it is usually not dangerous for the drunk driver.

Anyway, in a 100% ZAP world, this would not even be an issue.  All roads would be privatized and there would be no government rules on roads.  If you need more info about this, listen to Free Talk Live because Ian talks about this issue all of the time 

[tracysaboe]

Sure. Perhaps statistically people who are drunk are more likely to get into an accident.

But statistics are for insurence companies. Not government. Governmetn should be  about prosecuting actual crime. Not whether a person's blood content is at some arbitrary number.

What's next. Is it going to be illegal to drive w/  too much seratonen or Malatonan in your blood from being tired?

These laws are the very essence of socialism. If a person is driving recklessly, then wreckless driving is the crime. If he's actively endangering the lives of pedestrians and other drivers, then that's the crime. If he kills somebody, then that's manslaughter or worse and he owes compensation to the victums, their various insurence companies, and serves his time. If he destroies somebody else property, then that's vandalism or worse -- regardless of whether he's got alchohol in his system or not.

See Lew Rockwell's Classic.

Legalize Drunk Driving
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

TN's correct though. Government -- even for the minarchist -- shouldn't be in the business of building or maintaining or regulating roads. building roads has nothing to do with protecting life/ liberty or property. Road-building is outside that purview.

Tracy

[intergraph19]

TN's correct though. Government -- even for the minarchist -- shouldn't be in the business of building or maintaining or regulating roads. building roads has nothing to do with protecting life/ liberty or property. Road-building is outside that purview.

That I agree with wholeheartedly.  Drunk driving is a touchy thing, and I have to agree the driving tired is just as bad, and I am guilty of that one.  As the situation stands, I think drunk driving falls under wreckless driving, and should not be a thing unto itself.  If you're drunk and your not swerving all over the road or on the wrong side or something like that, then let it be.  Some people can handle their liquor and still function, probably as well as I can tired.  ^_^ I would not drive drunk personally cause I KNOW I'd do something stupid.  Now if you hit someone while drunk or tired or in some way obviously unable to drive safely, I do not consider that a petty crime.  Not if you damage someone elses property or person.  To me, speeding is a petty crime, but theft at a certain amount is not.  It's petty when you AREN'T violating anyone elses property or person.  Funny how the law sees it the other way around. 

Kind of like the judge who gave community service to the kids who defaced someones property and yet I drive on a suspended lisence and he tries to throw the book at me.  WHat's wrong with this picture?

[tracysaboe]

And the people who's property those kids damaged probably don't even get their money back 

Tracy

[cathleeninnh]

DUI is a mechanism to prevent some potentially deadly crimes from occuring. I understand the desire for some mechanism. Maybe prevention should not be a role of the state. If that was the position of more people, we wouldn't be hitting our heads against a brick wall fighting regulatory legislation. It doesn't seem to me to be effective, but in Concord I have heard more than once someone claim that a significant portion of the public will comply with new laws, making it an effective way to prevent some worse offense.

Do I remember correctly that there was some attempt somewhere to encourage good driving through rewards?  Why don't we see more of this  through non-governmental means?

Cathleen

[ravelkinbow]

It's easier for them to slap a bandaid on the problem then to work for a better solution

Concord = 

[DC]

Do I remember correctly that there was some attempt somewhere to encourage good driving through rewards?  Why don't we see more of this  through non-governmental means?

Cathleen

I think I saw that on an Allstate commercial.

[intergraph19]

DUI is a mechanism to prevent some potentially deadly crimes from occuring. I understand the desire for some mechanism. Maybe prevention should not be a role of the state. If that was the position of more people, we wouldn't be hitting our heads against a brick wall fighting regulatory legislation. It doesn't seem to me to be effective, but in Concord I have heard more than once someone claim that a significant portion of the public will comply with new laws, making it an effective way to prevent some worse offense.

Someone brought up the idea of the insurance companies having control of the roads and giving driving privlages to people.  Not a bad idea, but I would almost rather have another company come forward and handle roads, seperate from the insurance companies.  Then people who did drive drunk, or just plain badly could be kicked off roads that are privatly owned. 

It seems like a basically good idea, have the roads be a commercial endevor, like airlines are, but the mechanics of it are mind boggeling.  It would take a lot of work to come up with a viable system that would preserve freedom of movement and yet remain safe enough to use. 

As a side note, when did licensing come into play?  I know back in the day, there was no such thing, it was, "If you can afford a car, you can drive it" so when did that change and why?  I'm not to adverse to getting a big honking truck, (Hummer is my preferance) and making my own blasted roads, but that's just cause I'm sick of dealing with the state having a saw over my "privalage" to drive.  Like I can ride my bike to work!  And when are they going to license people to ride bikes?