The DUI argument, yet again.

I am entirely unsympathetic on this one. If you got one, I'm happy you did and hope you learned your lesson. Sorry.

But this guy is not arguing on behalf of himself, but of "a friend." So as long as we're being all rhetorical here, I opine that it's stupid to simply fine people for a DUI—they should lose their license on the first offense, for six months. End of story.

My passenger says it'll never happen; states need the money too much. He thinks giving people who breathe a hair above the limit (his "friend") the full treatment is just a ploy on the part of the government to increase revenue.

I'm not too sure about this, considering how much it takes to enforce and prosecute DUI offenders, but I'm willing to field this as a viable argument for now. I sigh and say that perhaps the idea that revocation of license might deter people is probably not even true. Most studies of criminal behavior don't find much of a deterrent effect.

"Well, we could be like El Salvador, where there's a death penalty for DUI," he says. Is there really? Hmm. "Wouldn't work either," he says. "In America, all sense of personal responsibility has been legislated away."

We discuss how the revenue problem would be solved by the legalization of pot on one hand, and how on the other pot causes fewer social problems than alcohol. On this, at least, he and I can certainly agree.