Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.
Not necessarily. Some accidents are simply not avoidable. And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others. That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road. (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)
Do you also take into account that some of those drivers may be impaired?
Of course.
Good. Then you can not claim that drunk drivers are putting you at risk against your will. You knowingly put yourself at risk by getting on the road after taking into consideration that some of the other drivers may be impaired.
I am also fully aware that if the laws didn't exist at all, or if society accepted such behavior, the risks to myself and my family would be much higher. That's a non-starter to me...and for the umpteenth time, to most other clear thinking and semi-responsible people in our society as well.
I'll agree that if society accepted such behavior then it would indeed be more common. But do you honestly think that the law prevents drunk driving? Drunks, after all, are not a group of people known for their good judgment. The law against drunk driving doesn't stop people from driving drunk. It provides for punishment if they do. And by narrowly focusing on drunkenness, it neglects many other forms of impairment. I've used them as examples earlier in the conversation. Tiredness. Distraction. Anger. Should we punish a person who drives angry? Or with a full bladder? And if a person causes an accident, does it really matter
why?
Elwar has the right of it. Hold all accidents to the same standard, and make the guilty party pay, instead of punishing people before they've harmed anyone.