redblueamerica.com

OK, OK. If it's illegal to drive while intoxicated (it should be) and illegal to drive while distracted by cell phone usage and texting in some states (it should be), why do we not have some kind of across-the-board law about distractions? These include, but are not limited to, playing with fire (aka smoking), changing CDs, tuning satellite receivers, searching for tracks on music players, reaching into the back seat to tend to children, eating, drinking (coffee, soft drinks, water), checking maps, adjusting GPS devices, changing clothing and so forth. Our politicians, who dearly love to prohibit things, would have a field day. And it would create jobs. After all, almost everyone would need to hire a driver. One who doesn't smoke, tune the radio, turn to get directions, drink coffee, eat his/her lunch on the run -- you get the picture. Oops! I forgot something. The lawmakers might be distracted themselves by lobbyists from the smoking industry, fast-food industry, music industry or even, heaven forbid, the voters themselves.

justible: I think I've got the spam filter trained to recognize you now. It's early, and the filters are a wee touchy yet.

Ben: Merely examining the burden societal costs makes us less free?

I agree with you, Joel. Both parties are in thrall to the bureaucratic assumptions of the administrative state. Where I disagree is whether everything that imposes a cost on society, however indirect, "ought to be at least examined." We're a less free people because of it.

Broadly speaking, I'll disagree with you. Anything that is stupid to do that carries a heavy cost to society -- in terms of lives lost, money spent on services, etc. -- ought to be at least examined. As much as anything, laws exist as signposts against stupid behavior. Your freedom, my nose, etc. extends, I think, to my wallet and how much additional tax (and health insurance and whatever else) I have to spend to subsidize stupid behavior.

That said, I like to have a cigar now and again.

Narrowly speaking, you're probably right: If driving while texting isn't covered by negligent driving/homicide laws already -- even if not explicitly named -- then there's probably not a negligent driving/homicide law in place.

As much as you'd like to ascribe this to "liberals" though, the Virginia House of Delegates is controlled by Republicans. The "problem" -- if we can call it that -- is that we've become overly legalistic. We don't know what "is" means, and we don't know what "torture" means, even though everybody knows what both those words mean, even if they're not spelled out in a statute book somewhere. It's a bipartisan issue.

Driverless cars, obviously.