tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4870905574657583796.post844555300403364104..comments2009-01-29T23:00:45.696-06:00Steve Harrelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02525770449071261507noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4870905574657583796.post-22722706868511301092009-01-29T23:00:00.000-06:002009-01-29T23:00:00.000-06:00Rep. Harrelson,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for mentioning this, it gives me the opportunity to explain more completely.<BR/><BR/>If you will notice, I couldn't even bring myself to vote "NO" on the bill because of the fact that I believe that what Rep. Kidd is trying to do is a good and right thing. (I did not vote.) As you correctly stated, my problem had more to do with how the enforcement was to be accomplished as a primary offense.<BR/><BR/>I wondered if it should not be made a secondary offense. I felt we would be assigning a duty to our police to enforce something that would be very difficult to accomplish. I fear we may often make their job unnecessarily difficult and leave them to face the consequences alone.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand since the floor discussion, I have been informed that it might be far better to be cited for a simple class C misdemeanor than what would result from any normally associated primary offence PLUS the secondary offence of texting. This is a very valid point, the end result of my initial suggestion seems rather severe.<BR/><BR/>As you know, but your readers may not, legislators are not always sure of the best course of action even after we have pushed that voting button. Perhaps Rep. Kidd was right.<BR/><BR/>Luckily, when any one of us is unsure, we can usually at least take comfort in the fact that the combined wisdom of 100 is more often correct than not.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/><BR/>Rep. Mark MartinRep. Mark Martinnoreply@blogger.com