“I’m arguing for CONSISTENCY in the law.”
On that we agree. I advocate that consistency be through the utilization of current laws to bring the hammer down on any driver that causes physical harm to persons or property damage. The existing laws already provide that avenue, for example we have vehicular manslaughter. It is not used consistently and it should be.
That said, I believe where we differ is that you are advocating adding to the current laws, where I would subtract from them to get that consistency. I would not have “special” laws for prosecuting those that cause harm or damage, instead I would eliminate those laws and better utilize the law to cover all situations where the driver causes that harm or damage.
To be more succinct, as an example, I would eliminate DUI laws, while at the same time I would bring the hammer down on anyone that causes the death of another person. Any driver that is at fault, whether by being drunk or by being distracted should spend many years in prison.
I say that as a person that did have a friend killed by a texter: http://www.mbkmemorial.org/
If I am misunderstanding your position, then I offer my apologies....
Actually, we agree, and you have done me a good service by pointing out that I was not following my own principles. If you look at my FR Profile page you'll find the great quote from Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative", which I take as a guiding light towards better, smaller government:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests', I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Unfortunately, in the case of DWI/DUI, there is this huge public sentiment in favor of punishing careless drunk drivers not just for their carelessness, but for their inebriation as well. It goes so far that a CAREFUL drunk driver who causes no harm is still just as liable to lose their license. I have no hope that those laws will ever be eliminated, so I was taking the fallback position that "if we're going to do A we should also do B".
You are quite right to correct me, and I thank you.
Also, I'm very sorry about your friend. That's a great memorial site.
Best FRegards, Dayglored