While I agree with your point to punish actual, I offer to you that you ignore the proven potential and this is the very mindset that brought us 9 11.
When you refuse to take any action prior to the 'actual' then you have no choice but to accept it when it happens.
I do not advocate waiting to respond to a problem that is known to exist.
Shall we wait till al qaeda attacks us here at home again? Shall we wait for that eventual 'actual' or should we take notice of the fact they ARE coming and do something about it BEFORE it happens?
I would offer to you that the ractionary method failed us on many occasions and to continue that is asking for more of the same. With drinking and driving it is no different. We all KNOW that people will die and people will be hurt when drinking and driving is mixed. Just as we know that terrorists will attack us. Do you sir, offer that we should not fight this war on terrorism? Do you offer that we should stand idle and do nothing until after they attack?
That is the same logic you use to the known effects of mixing drinking and driving. I offer you need to rethink your positions as you take a different one for one than from the other.
But hey, that is just my suggestion, your position is for you to chose, I just hope you have thought it thru to see how it applies across the board of contexts.
I will offer the following: We could "save" 40,000 lives per year if we just outlaw motorized travel altogether (probably not, though, since horses and mules have a brain the size of a walnut and occasionally have to prove that they weigh 1,000 lbs. or more and we don't).
The law of diminishing returns comes into play here. It's just not worth it. Nor is it worth criminalizing 2 million people per year for "DWI". More kids drown in mop buckets every year than there are innocent people killed in traffic accidents (oops, "crashes") caused by "drunk" drivers, yet there is no such organization as "Mothers Against Mop Buckets".
It just isn't worth it.