“Is the punishment for drunk driving fair?”

In reference to the column “DUIs 4 Eva” (May 21): First off, fairness is a relative term in relation to the judicial system. As for your example of Laura Bush’s lack of punishment in 1963, this does not come as a surprise to anyone and proves that fairness holds little weight in relation to laws.\nSecond, the fact that talking on your cell phone or using your stereo, etc. is also a distraction while driving is a valid point. Yet I believe there is a thing called involuntary manslaughter for this purpose as well as for drunk driving cases.\nPeople are making a conscious choice to drink (becoming impaired mentally, after all this is the purpose of the activity). As for people driving slowly while drunk as a conscious decision on their own part to be safer is only sometimes true. Often it is because they are mentally not “with it” enough to realize how slow they are driving. Obviously this was the case with Paris Hilton’s friend Nicole Ritchie who was arrested for driving down the wrong side of the road while intoxicated.\nAnd yes, we look for people to blame when they are the ones at fault. Whether or not everyone that is guilty of a crime is punished is just something we have to learn to live with in a imperfect system. (Or we as concerned citizens have to help fight to make better.)\nOn a more personal note: I find your article to be quite irresponsible in its tone and adds to the ongoing fight over the moral footing of America. Regardless of how you feel (your opinion) about a very political issue you should not give free passes to what we as a society have deemed illegal actions. That is unless you’re an anarchist, I guess.\nAlso, in case you’re wondering, I do enjoy a good drink, but I do not drive afterwards, this is why designated drivers are a good thing. We can have fun and be responsible.