Austin Is Conducting Sting Operations Against Ride-Sharing Drivers (examiner.com) 258
Since the Uber and Lyft ride-sharing apps stopped service in Austin, drunk driving has increased, riders are hunting for alternatives, and the police are conducting undercover sting operations against unauthorized ride-sharing drivers. With Chicago also considering new restrictions on ride-sharing apps, Slashdot reader MarkWhittington shares this report from Austin:
With thousands of drivers and tens of thousands of riders who once depended on ride-sharing services in a lurch, a group called Arcade City has tried to fill the void with a person-to-person site to link up drivers and riders who then negotiate a fare. Of course, according to a story on KVUE, the Austin city government, and the police are on the case. The Austin Police Department has diverted detectives and resources to conduct sting operations on ride-sharing drivers who attempt to operate without official sanction. Undercover operatives will arrange for a ride with an Arcade City driver and then bust them, impounding their vehicle and imposing a fine.
"The first Friday and Saturday after Uber was gone, we were joking that it was like the zombie apocalypse of drunk people," one former ride-sharing driver told Vocative.com. Earlier this month the site compared this year's drunk driving arrests to last years -- and discovered that in the three weeks since Uber and Lyft left Austin, 7.5% more people have been arrested for drunk driving.
"The first Friday and Saturday after Uber was gone, we were joking that it was like the zombie apocalypse of drunk people," one former ride-sharing driver told Vocative.com. Earlier this month the site compared this year's drunk driving arrests to last years -- and discovered that in the three weeks since Uber and Lyft left Austin, 7.5% more people have been arrested for drunk driving.
Perfect for Jury Nullification (Score:2)
Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not exactly the whole story. After the referendum was put on the ballot, Uber and Lyft went nuts with advertising, including direct phone calls of people with Uber and Lyft accounts. Basically, they made themselves so annying that even those who might have supported them were completely pissed off. Then they had to leave to save face after all the effort they made into the vote. That left a vacuum which was filled by many small ride sharing companies.
As i understand it from hearing about it on radio
Re:keep everyone employed (Score:4, Funny)
Zorg: Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.
Re: (Score:2)
Well more to the point, someone is making money and is CHEAPER than the entrenched, bribe-throwing Taxi companies.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a sickening sign that liberalism is entrenching itself in Austin.
Austin is a college town and has always been liberal (at least by Texas standards). College students tend to favor authoritarian solutions to economic issues. There is nothing new about that.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything new is the infestation of California Residents. We watched the change over 5 years. It we got out just before they banned BBQ's in town.
Re: keep everyone employed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uber and Lyft left Austin because the VOTERS decided in a referendum to demand that they do ground checks based on fingerprints. Uber and Lyft said that what they had was good enough. Lyft and Uber lost badly and they so they left. So, to be clear for you my astroturfing friend, most people VOTED AGAINST LYFT and UBER.
I think it's fair to say that most people (over 50%) have never taken Uber or Lyft and were just going by the horror stories they heard on the news. Also, those people voted for more regulations, from a consumer's point of view, more regulations on others can't be that bad. Nobody likes to be regulated, but everyone is willing to regulate others.
That being said, the suggested regulation went above and beyond requiring fingerprinting the ten fingers and doing an FBI background check (which is what the UberBl
Re: (Score:3)
true story: I was in Austin last summer. I was having a bad allergic reaction cuz where I was staying was an old house and there was so much dust. Out for drinks with my buddies, and my top lip starts swelling up cuz allergies. long story short, we drink, we drink, and my lip gets so huge it makes me look like a platypus!
head on home, go to bed, then next AM it is still swollen up! I thought it would subside during the night. so I look up on my phone where the nearest urgent care clinic is, so I could get a
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, in general you would have been better off in a taxi. They prioritize medical rides, obviously (but lyft does not.) Beyond that, taxi in most places have radios, and can speed in the case of medical emergencies, arranging with the police to avoid being pulled over.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you have a 911 ambulance service for that sort of thing? Then you get a medically trained person to monitor you while you go to the hospital, or they might even be able to treat you on the spot.
Re: (Score:2)
May be a taxi would have been available, but it really depends on the time he called.
In those cities that have an artificially limited number of medaillons, drunk people can not get taxis during peak hours. The peak hours for drunk people are actually the result of other regulations that force bars and night clubs to shut down at the same times, thus flooding the streets with people needing rides all during those same times.
Re: Perfect for Jury Nullification (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people never are never in a serious car accident, either. Should we therefore get rid of requirements for seat belts and liability insurance? Same logic.
Re: (Score:2)
And nobody (I think?) disputes that the voters have the right to pass (almost any) laws they see fit in their own town.
What people are saying is that voters should consider unintended consequences. Of course those voters surely wanted the provisions to increase safety. If (big if!) it's true that these provisions actually decreased safety (hey, the world is unpredictable) then those same voters be aware of this outcome.
Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a couple of problems with relying on jury nullification:
1) The average person doesn't know it's an option, and most judges won't let anyone tell them during the case.
2) One of the key purposes of the modern American jury selection process is to filter out anyone who might think for themselves.
Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification (Score:5, Informative)
At voir dire you must never admit to being an advocate of jury nullification, even though it's a power you have as a juror. If you exercise it in a given trial, always have some interpretation of the evidence and testimony, however strained, to use as an excuse. You have the right to be as tricky as the prosecutor is at interpreting the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever think that's because advocates of nullification are generally assholes that want to make trials to be about _them_ for egocentric reasons instead of the actual court case? Really, ranting about jury nullification is commonly associated with such far-out crap like sovereign citizens, tax denialism and other idiotic shit.
Preaching for something that exists for _extremely_ unusual circumstances for, like, every court case one doesn't like the result of is a good way to destroy this tool for the truly exce
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say that nowadays just about every case is about trampling upon the Bill of Rights which in my humble opinion is exceptional and deserves nullification. The Ballot Box has proven over and over that it doesn't work because people, by and large, have been trained in the public school system that makes them into good little sheeple.
I'm just your average asshole who's seen the destruction of and government nullification of the people's rights.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I don't rant about jury nullification. It's just a power that a juror should be able to, given the appropriate circumstances, exercise.
Re: Perfect for Jury Nullification (Score:4, Insightful)
Harlan F. Stone, Chief Justice
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are really saying is that laws shouldn't exist and only a jury should decide if something is a crime or not?
That's lynch mob justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
advocates of nullification are generally assholes
Oh, fuck you. Standing up for justice doesn't make someone an asshole.
Hear, hear. Anything that can act as even a small safety valve against the overuse and abuse of the criminal <quote>justice</quote> system is a Good Thing(TM).
Re:Perfect for Jury Nullification (Score:5, Funny)
That's money in the bank baby! (Score:4, Insightful)
Other than catering to lobbyists for cash, there's nothing that govts enjoy more than "incidental" revenue. Literal "public safety" is somewhere near the bottom of the list, somewhere after "leaving things in better shape for my successor".
Re:That's money in the bank baby! (Score:5, Informative)
"Earlier this month the site compared this year's drunk driving arrests to last years -- and discovered that in the three weeks since Uber and Lyft left Austin, 7.5% more people have been arrested for drunk driving."
Keep in mind that that was a 6 week sample in absolute terms (not relative to population growth or corrected for any other factors, like more aggressive policing, festivals/events that could have spiked rates, weather, etc - it was just raw year-over-year numbers). It's bad statistics. It's been a bit depressing to watch so many techies (including many of my data science friends who should know better) blindly believe Uber/Lyft's messaging.
I live in Austin and I'm really sick of the Uber/Lyft propaganda machines. All they're doing is spending their VC money on lobbying and lawyers to mold communities in their image rather than trying to develop a service that actually works with the communities they serve (seriously: they spent $9MM trying to influence a local election. What a waste of some investor's money.) Uber is just a grand VC experiment in seeing how they can run illegal businesses and force laws to change for them. They tried it in health (23andMe, Therenos) and found the FDA to be a formidable opponent and instead went after an unpopular industry (taxis) to develop their playbook. Once they work out the playbook with taxis, they'll go after other regulated industries.
Remember, Uber and Lyft were not forced out of Austin. They simply left because they didn't want to play by the rules. They could have stayed. What's exciting is that the market is working and a whole new crop of TNCs are evolving in Austin that are willing to work with the community rather than against it.
And don't get me wrong, I love the idea of TNCs. They're great services, they just need to play by the same rules as everyone else and when those rules don't seem to be right, work with the community to find ones that do (compromise is part of that). Right now, Uber and Lyft are just acting like that spoiled rich kid you knew growing up who was never held accountable for his actions.
-Chris
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, they left because Austin changed the rules.
Re:That's money in the bank baby! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Remember, Uber and Lyft were not forced out of Austin. They simply left because they didn't want to play by the rules."
To be fair, they left because Austin changed the rules.
To be fair, they left because Austin changed the rules to require background checks like all other professional drivers (taxi drivers, limo drivers, bus drivers, etc.) operating in the city.
Or, as GP said, "they simply left because they didn't want to play by the rules" (which everybody else does).
Re: (Score:2)
That seems to work fine in London. Taxis can use the bus lanes, minicabs, including Über can't. You can pay more for a taxi and get there quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One, most importantly, the vote was "taxi services have to abide by taxi service rules, even if they're on the internet"
Two, rules change in a democracy when they no longer work for the people. Rules changing is what busted up Standard Oil and what kept Microsoft from owning the Browser.
Life may be considered a game, and stable rules are nice, but the stability is just one benefit. If it's worth it, the Supreme Court reverses a decision, or Congress adds a regulation or a referendum passes.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. When people don't like your rules, they leave. Get used to it: it's what happens in a free society.
Another thing you have to learn is that customers/employees/businesses/companies don't owe you any kind of explanation or opportunity to compromise: if you institute bogus rules, people just walk. Get used to it.
If you want Ube
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly - don't let the door bruise your ass on the way out, freeloader.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you worry your pretty little head about my ass, worry about your own future.
Re: (Score:2)
This used to be true. But I think DraftKings and FanDuel are the new ones pushing the boundary. "One particular law says that maybe our product is only regulated by all other laws, not just this one" --> We're legal !!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other than catering to lobbyists for cash, there's nothing that govts enjoy more than "incidental" revenue. Literal "public safety" is somewhere near the bottom of the list, somewhere after "leaving things in better shape for my successor".
Ding ding ding.
Many, sometimes conflicting, truths can be simultaneous. For instance, drunk driving is at once dangerous, stupid, something we as a society should work towards preventing, a huge money-making turnstile for local government, over-broadly defined, etc etc.
I'm not one of those people that goes shouting "market solutions11!!!" at every problem, but rideshare services have done a pretty bangup job reducing drunk driving (both raw statistics-wise, and attitude-wise). The utilitarian pragma
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just "should they be fingerprinted". Taxi services are fingerprinted. It's "should Austin enforce its laws, when the internet is involved." And, I would definitely say, yes.
Sometimes principle is of overriding value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
even if true, a 7.5% increase is not "drunk driver apocalypse". Unless uber made people drink more, at best the stats should revert to pre-uber numbers.
Drunk driving is a serious crime that kills people (Score:4, Insightful)
It's nothing to joke about. And trying to blame a lack of taxis for commiting a crime is really pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
It's nothing to joke about. And trying to blame a lack of taxis for committing a crime is really pathetic.
No one is blaming a lack of taxis or saying that the scumbags that drive drunk are not ethically reprehensible. What we are saying is that people are marginally shitty and if you make it marginally-harder for them to do the right thing then marginally fewer will do the right thing. That's not a moral statement, it's an empirical one.
That's not an argument anyone accused of drunk driving should be able to raise a defense, but it is certainly an argument to present to a legislative authority debating whether
Re: Drunk driving is a serious crime that kills pe (Score:5, Informative)
Fact: accident and injuries caused by driver impairment happen at levels around .15 and that number has not changed no matter what they've done with the laws. The people you need to be worried about are habitual drunks who have no regard for anything, and that's another thing that laws and checkpoints and other modern bullshit does not change.
Uh, NO.
There's no "magic switch" that happens after your blood alcohol level goes above 0.15. It's a gradual ramp upward of increased risk of accident, beginning somewhere around 0.05, based on a number of studies.
By the time you reach 0.08 (the threshold of many municipalities), you're at somewhere between twice the risk and 7 times the risk of a sober person of causing an accident. (Different studies come up with different figures, but there's a clear and significant relationship.) By the time you get up to your proposed limit of 0.15, you're up to about 25 times greater chance of causing an accident than a sober person.
It *is* true that the *majority* of drunk-driving accidents are caused by people who are significantly impaired, something like 75% of them by people with 0.15 and up. But that still leaves a significant number of people below your threshold who cause accidents.
So I at least won't joke about actual DUI but I will joke about the laws, and I will insult at every opportunity the profiteering and ruining of countless lives for no reason by our 'justice' system.
There are obviously screwed up aspects of drunk-driving laws, as there are with most things. But your assumptions ("FACT") are NOT true. Even a couple of drinks is often enough to begin to impact your driving abilities, and if you're driving over the limit (whether 0.08 or 0.1 or whatever), you ARE at significantly greater risk of causing an accident than a sober person.
Be responsible. Stop kidding yourself and saying, "Yeah I'm okay to drive" when you've had 5 or 6 beers (which is what it takes for a typical adult male of average weight to get to around 0.15). I can't believe any mods have modded this up as "informative."
Re: (Score:2)
Be responsible. ... I can't believe any mods have modded this up as "informative."
You have conveniently ignored at least one item from GP posting. Specifically, that claim:
the definition of 'alcohol related accident' meaning ANY person involved having a measurable amount of alcohol (including passengers and pedestrians) leads to the inflating of numbers and 'proof' that we need even stupider laws.
(If true) that alone seems like a problem negating ANY meaningful statistics on a number of "alcohol-related" accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
You have conveniently ignored at least one item from GP posting. Specifically, that claim:
the definition of 'alcohol related accident' meaning ANY person involved having a measurable amount of alcohol (including passengers and pedestrians) leads to the inflating of numbers and 'proof' that we need even stupider laws.
(If true) that alone seems like a problem negating ANY meaningful statistics on a number of "alcohol-related" accidents.
I ignored it because it's irrelevant to everything I posted. The statistics I was quoting were from studies based on drunk DRIVERS, not on "alcohol-related accidents" or whatever. There tend to be pretty good and reliable records of drunk DRIVERS because most states tend to put such people in jail for at least a few days when they happen. (Also, something I wasn't clear on -- the numbers I gave were lowball estimates from studies for the most part. I didn't want to be accused of exaggerating anything.)
Re: (Score:2)
The route you have driven a thousand times is more dangerous if anything. Rote memory and muscle memory allow the brain to switch out so it's like you can fall asleep and drive perfectly for kilometers, which is fairly scary.
Turn It Around On Them (Score:2, Troll)
Set up a "sting" on the cops.
There are thousands of drivers and riders, right? This is Texas where there are a large number of firearm owners, right?
Shouldn't be any trouble to surround the cops with thousands while video/audio recording and then decide, based on the police reaction, to just loudly protest or to forcibly disarm them and place them under citizen's arrest. There is power in numbers. When the government itself fails to follow the Rule of Law when it comes to the powerful and 'connected', force
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you just got added to like 7 lists.
Pfft!
I've probably been on just about every 'list' they have for decades, now. Screw the authoritarian bastages.
The fear is what they want. I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer, the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Strat
This summary is BS. (Score:5, Informative)
You know what else would solve drunk driving? (Score:5, Insightful)
proper public transport *does* run 24/7 (Score:2)
Which means they need to extend their transportation services, so they can accommodate those getting off work at 1:00 am, as well as those who need to be on the way to work by 3:00 am.
If there are members of the public out all hours (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Public transit systems require massive subsidies even for their service during high traffic hours. The idea that they could break even after midnight is utterly disconnected from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere has that. How would it be "proper"? It's completely novel.
Moreover the buses would run empty much of the time, and the enviros would bitch and moan about the pollution. Thing is, a bus is great, pollution-wise - as long as it's loaded down with people. If it's carrying 3 people then it's a huge polluter.
7.5% increase in DUI - stop repeating this BS (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I am violently against the idiotic regulations passed by our city council that pushed Uber and Lyft our. But that does not justify bullshit statistics. This 7.5% increase stat is repeated by everyone and its total
It compares number of absolute arrests to same period last year. It does not account for increased population in a rapidly growing area. It does not consider APD force size. It does not consider APD enforcement priorities. It does not consider APD coverage densities downtown vs elsewhere. I could go on.
Enough already. There are plenty of actual facts and actual logic to show how stupid the TNC licensure measures are. We don't need to make shit up and rely on the fact that 90% of Americans failed stats101.
Are you opposed to the background checks? (Score:2)
Then again I recognize that it's unfair to perpetually punish someone. Would you be i
Re: (Score:2)
It should be up to Uber and their customers: if customers demand background checks, the Uber will institute them. If not, then there is no need for the city to require them.
And what magic technology would provide this infallible pre-crime analysis?
Re: (Score:3)
No. What's idiotic is treating a hey-we're-not-a-taxi-company, taxi company as a legitimate business.
Re: (Score:2)
What's idiotic is that people like you pretend to stand up for the little guy, while embracing policies that serve crony capitalists and the wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The corny capitalists are Uber and Lyft, idiot. The "little guy" is the Uber driver who makes less than minimum wage after costs. The "little guy" is the poor shlub passenger stuck with the drivers $25,000 in medial coverage, after an uninsured drunk causes a crash. The "little guy" is the disabled person (from the drunk driver) who's been left shit outta lu
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they have taxis in Austin, TX? (Score:2)
weird that people only trust Lyft and Uber.
Re: (Score:3)
Taxis are artificially expensive, and generally as slow as they want to be. Particularly when legislation has driven competition out and they have no reason to be timely or reasonably priced.
Myself, I don't trust taxis, because the last time I did, I waited an hour for one at 2 AM, and when the one assigned to me showed up on tracking in the parking lot, it passed me by to pick up a bigger fare. The app then said that I had been picked up. When I tried to get another cab, the dispatcher called me, cursed m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For all practical purposes, we don't. The only time I ever needed one, I had to make a 30 minute walk to the nearest hotel, which was the only place they were willing to come to.
Correlation != causation (Score:2)
I thought that was a popular meme around here?
Ride sharing example (Score:3, Interesting)
"Hey Ez, where you headed?" my neighbor asks.
"Up to the store to get a few things" I yell back.
"Mind if I ride along? I need some stuff too."
"Sure, hop on in" I tell her.
"Thanks! Here's a five for gas." she says as she climbs into my car.
Uber, Lyft, and the like don't "share" rides, they are taxi services.
Why don't they just call a taxi? (Score:2)
If people were drunk driving without calling a taxi, I'd throw the book at them too if I was a judge.
If they want their Uber and Lyft back, maybe they should encourage those companies to buy proper taxi licenses.
Forgot the Alamo (Score:2)
So much for all that Big Texas "Freedom".
Why can't they just call taxis? (Score:2)
Are young people so fucking cool and hip that calling a fucking taxi is seen as passé? Seriously?
We get it uber is cooler and easier or some other bullshit, ok fine, you prefer it but hey TAXIS STILL EXIST?
WTF
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's just that there aren't any. There's too few of them in late hours, unpopular locations, destinations, etc...
It's not the coolness factor, it's the convenience and reliability, and, well, cost, too. You need a ride, you have a reasonably priced one in 10-15 minutes, in almost any part of the town.
Re: (Score:3)
Uber & Lift left Austin (Score:3, Interesting)
Believe me, Uber & Lyft made a statement by leaving months before the deadline for compliance. They were well aware that they would disrupt many of their employees (one of whom I know) and, as pointed out in the article, left drunks without a plan.
Uber & Lyft have been roundly criticized for this "I taking my marbles and going home!" tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
left drunks without a plan
So people don't have to be responsible for themselves now? There is no claw that will pick a drunk up at the bar and drop them safely in bed so what else can they do but drive home drunk? HOW ABOUT NOT DRINK.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Proof that the local government doesn't care about public safety but they do care about their budgets. Can't make their bottom line without DUI convictions and seized vehicles.
The whole purpose of the referendum was to demand that these companies do background checks for "public safety" you fucking twit. No one forced them to leave, they weren't able to get their way and out of fear that it would set a precedent which would impact their bottom line they chose to leave. If you are mad, that anger should be directed squarely at them. Arcade City is violating a law that the People of Austin voted for, so I do not fault the police for enforcing the will of the people. The increase in
Re: (Score:3)
The whole purpose of the referendum was to demand that these companies do background checks for "public safety" you fucking twit. No one forced them to leave, they weren't able to get their way and out of fear that it would set a precedent which would impact their bottom line they chose to leave. If you are mad, that anger should be directed squarely at them
They are not obligated to serve the city if they don't want to. And you certainly cannot blame them for the fact that the same people that voted to restrict their operations chose to be shitheads and risk others' lives by driving drunk.
As to the public safety argument, I think one has to be aware that measures that were intended to increase public safety do not always work in the way intended. I'm sure the voters believed at the time (and perhaps justly so) that the background checks would increase safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When the city forces breweries to provide parking for their customers [austintexas.gov], then I think the city is at least partially responsible for the predictable drunk driving crashes that result, don't you?
And how is it not entrapment when the city encourages a behavior and then prosecutes people for doing it?
Re: (Score:2)
Then take a taxi to get home, then another taxi back to your car in the morning. Any other stupid questions?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, it took you less than a day to change from "the people won" to "voters are idiots."
Trolls are s
Re: (Score:2)
Um, which is it? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Wrong, but interesting that you would post it, and as AC. Makes me wonder what motivates such a post.
Both Uber and Lyft provide up to $1 million in liability protection and other insurance benefits while carrying passengers.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we also deduce that the taxi medallion supply is well below taxi passenger demand?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is, how else do you "justify" insanely high fares and slow service?
That's how the taxi operators WANT it.
That's why THEY lobbied for the medallion laws, or however else taxi numbers are limited in Austin.
Re:Increase in hospital visits after legalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Colorado legalized marijuana there has been a 300% increase in hospital visits related to marijuana usage [go.com].
You don't suppose that might be because people avoided actually seeking medical care before, because they were afraid of getting into legal trouble?
From that point of view, the 300% increase would be a positive outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is another story [reason.com] about Colorado marijuana legalization:
Marijuana charges filed in Colorado courts fell 81 percent between 2012 and 2015, from 10,340 to 1,954. Those dramatic changes saved thousands of people from unjust punishment and channeled law enforcement resources toward activities with a bigger public safety payoff.
I'll take a few knuckleheads that hurt themselves over thousands upon thousands of persecuted people, a distended justice system that thrives on a huge supply of drug cases, a violent underclass of contraband dealers and a militarized police force to deal with it. Idiots hurt themselves with illegal drugs every day; until you're ready to operate a large scale gulag system your laws can't prevent that.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots hurt themselves with illegal drugs every day; until you're ready to operate a large scale gulag system your laws can't prevent that.
Not even that would help. A prison is a practical example of the perfect police state, yet it doesn't keep out drugs.
Far, far, far more people are hurt after drinking (Score:2)
...alcohol. So, either you want to bring back Prohibition, or you're a concern troll.
Re: (Score:2)
So, do that.......charge 54 cents with a "strongly encouraged" tip to make up the difference. Or add "non-optional" fees for things that aren't directly related to car maintenance (which is covered by the mileage reimbursement).....kind of like "shipping and handling" when you place an order. .54 cents per mile for the trip
$ 4.00 "convenience fee"
$ 2.00 "destination charge"
etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Because just about anyone can drive you safely from one place to another, and almost nobody can safely perform a root canal?
It doesn't even begin to compare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)